didn't read. the right to bear arms is imperative. otherwise the capitalist state has a monopoly on the means for violence and have unlimited control over our lives. ****.
That's cool. I don't get out shooting much myself, but I like it.
Though the most fun I have had is my spud gun, to be honest - a few years back I made that sucker. You can go around shooting dumpsters and buildings and not have to worrya bout killing someone. Also when you hit a dumpster, for example, it goes *BANG* and leaves a big white potassium/starch stain -- not to mention you don't have to worry about bullets bouncing off the surface and <i>zing</i>ing back at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." -Scott Adams<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Venmoch summed it up perfectly that is so exactly what I think, I can't even tell you correct that is.
I actually can't believe people still use this as a valid argument... "...but the other guy has it too, Mom, I have to have one!" And, accroding to your logic, Dez, Sadam should be allowed all the nuclear weapons he wants to have because the US has them too and it is his right to pull even for purposes of "defence" because quite obviously the US poses a thread to him. This is such a Cold War mentality.
I am quite sure you wouldn't Sadam to have those weapons, but then again, how could you deny anything as long as the US has it too? One could say that he is "evil" and not trustworthy, but then again who said all the gunowners in the US were?
As long as I don't think a person has the MER (nice abreviation), I wouldn't trust him with a gun. Teaching this responsibility in school would be a good way to start, if you can't get rid your beloved guns.
I don’t care if some one has a gun for a good reason but I do care if it is some thing ridicules like fully automatics why would you need a weapon like that are you planning to take on an army of burglars <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I see myself a civil protector of the USA and my state of Alabama. I have alot of weapons yes, I store them like a freaking squirrle with nuts. It doesnt matter whqat you guys say, even if there is a law passed to ban all guns, gun controll, or any thing like that, I am going to fight for my guns, and the only person I would allow to take my guns away is God. If anyone attacked my area of the USA (Which wont happen soon.) I will be able to defend my family, and my home and country. That law will never pass, every redneck down here owns a gun, and they will fight for them to. Yeah, go ahead and try and take our guns away, you will have a freaking war on your hands.
Something random.
If someone DID invade the US, near the south, they wont get vary far. Constant sniper and deer rifle attacks coming from forests, rednecks in fords with shotguns, plus If they came into Alabama, we would just break into the Mobile Armory....which is like 1/2 from my house.
OK, I'm back, I've got something to drink nearby, and a new Eels CD in the player. Let's start.
For the sake of my sanity, I'd like to sum the points in here made up into seperate argumentations. This of course bears the danger of me discussing into the wrong direction, if that happens, sorry.
Main Argument 1: <b>Personal Defense.</b>
I believe Dez brought the 'burglar in your house / criminal on the street' scenarioes to its common denominator when he said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You think I shouldn't be able to defend myself against those with guns? Why not? how could I ever defend myself against a person with a gun if do not have one myself? should I then make illegal bombs and other weapons that are unreliable to defend myself. Homemade weapons which have a very high potential of backfiring and going off when you do not want them to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, you say that as there are people who can threaten you with a weapon, you should be allowed the right to posses said kind of weapon in order to defend yourself, correct?
But tell me, how often have you been in such a situation? How often have your friends? How many people do you know who were attacked by an armed criminal, and how many of them were able to defend themselves with a gun? I mean, maybe life's really different on your side of the Atlantic, but I lived my eighteen years one earth without of <i>one</i> hold-up. Sure, small statistical chances don't mean that you can happen to be one of the unfortunate few who get attacked by a criminal, but I'd like to establish that it's not necessary to take the risk of getting attacked by an armed goon for granted. Follow me so far?
Of course, and I'm sure you'll point me to it, this all doesn't really qualify as an argument for gun control - one may still argue that it's best to prepare for the worst case, but I believe that the original argument doesn't serve against gun control, either:
First, as I already implied in the part above, the risk of getting into such situations just does really not stand in any kind of relation to the weight this argument is given in the whole discussion.
Second, to catch on to Ramses' argumentation, even if you get into a 'burglar in your house' situation, what is the intention of a normal criminal? Your property, not your life. No matter what the news make you believe, there are only <i>very</i> few maniacs who try to injure / kill you for no reason at all out there - the biggest part is really not after you, but after your belongings. Now, while this is still nothing very nice, this means that, if you decide to shoot at someone who's broken into your house, you most certainly try to kill / injure someone in defense of your property, <i>not</i> in defense of your or your families lifes. Self defense? Not likely.
So, to sum it up, yes, there <i>is</i> a chance of being threatened to your life by an armed criminal, and there's also a chance of being able to defend yourself with your weapon, but, for comparisons sake, there's also a chance of getting hit by lightning.
Main Argument 2: <b>Political Defense</b>
To quote Dez again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"But, we don't need guns in america because we aren't being oprressed." That's exactly right. And if we keep our guns we ensure that we never will be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leaving the question whether 'you' are or are not being opressed aside (I'm sure you'd be suprised by the notion of an american muslim on that), this argument is of course deeply routed in the American history - after all, one might ask, what would've happened if the British would've institutionalized gun controls in the colonies? And then, one can go on and list a whole bunch of cases in which people without of guns were opressed.
On the other hand, can you name any recent armed uprisings that were successful in the sense that they greatly improved the situation of the people in the country in question?
Thinking back at the great, truly great 'revolutions' of the last fifty years, they all, from Ghandis libartion of India, over Martin Luther Kings fight against seggregation and the fall of the Wall in Berlin to the end of Milosevics reign in Serbia were achieved without of violent means.
Why is this so?
Because the gun has lost its role as "equalizer", as Onuma put it. Face it, in a time of Abrahms, F-16s, cruise missiles, SAMs, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (not to mention the stuff that'll be introduced within the next ten years), it's just impossible for the civil population of a country to obtain weaponry that can even remotely compete with that of the possible opressors. Armed uprisings, especially in the United States, are fated to fail, no matter how just the cause.
There are new ways - my favorite of them being the 'passive resistance', of which none involves a gun. Any history book will show you that they aren't some hippies dream, but as (or even more) possible than grabbing your gun and being shot down for freedom.
Main Argument 3: <b>Guns are cool</b>
You got me there. Yes, guns are cool, yes, they are aesthetical, yes, they are craftsmanship. No doubt about any of these. I can, although I wouldn't practice it myself, understand that shooting can be considered a sport.
None of these reasons do however really change something about the arguments against weapon control - Germany, where such laws are passed, has its gun collectors, it has its sports shooters. None of them are severely limited by gun control legislation - unless they decide to try and collect nukes...
I guess I could write more, but experience shows that I shouldn't, as I'd a) start talking crap, and b) wouldn't be read anyway.
Robbery constitutes a reason to use letha force. Also you may notice that you "dont have to retreat, even if its safe" Your home is your temple, defend it with your life.
I'm sorry I didn't adress your argument - there's just so much I can write in one go without it losing drastically in quality.
The idea of 'gun education' is an interesting one I have not informed myself enough to take a final stance, so all I can offer are my first impressions (i.e.: I'm about to start talking out of my butt.):
First, I'd like to note that your notion about gun control being a thing mainly supported by the "religious right" isn't correct: I, like many other people advocating gun control, couldn't be farther from their opions.
Aside from that, I principially agree that a kind of education for the gun should be put in place - you also have to get yourself a driving license before sitting behind the steering wheel, after all. If personal weapon ownership was to be kept legal - and let me repeat that I couldn't oppose this more - it'd be a step to at least somewhat reduce the danger from firearms.
Now, to that quote. Thanks for bringing it up, I'll be sure to read it all.
I really find it interesting how Paines (Paynes) words are even today literaly part of legislation, which of course makes my point about them being a metaphor also applicable on the whole law.
Aside from that, am I the only one who sees a distinct contradiction between "A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home." and "[...]and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."? I mean, robbery is defined as being the removal of property by intimidation, <i>not</i> the actual action of violence, which would fill an additional charge. How is that life threatening?
Robbery is just defined as an act that warrents self defense, if you read the entire 'book' on self defense, it basically says if you manage to convince a jury of your peers that your actions were justified, then they were.
The main argument they make is that when a person enters your home violently (viloent entry is any entry that is not authorized by the people occupying the home) you have no Idea what his/her intentions are. You are not required to flee, therefore you can do anything in your power to stop them, so long as you can convince a jury that your actions warrented whatever force you used. So lets say they broke in with the intent of stealing your stereo, but when they walked past your sisters bedroom they saw she was sleeping naked and desided to go rape her... bla bla bla Im sure I can make nightmare scenarios up forever.
Ill Also back down off the relegious right thing, I just threw that in to connect the AIDS argument since they WERE the ones who oppesed sex education in schools.
Since Im a gun owner I'm Biased toward no gun controll, but I'm willing to give up my weapons if the entire world decided one day to melt them all and build schools or some such. But so long as guns continue to exist in the hands of some, I feel that EVERYONE needs to have fair access to em.
<!--QuoteBegin--Venmoch+Feb 11 2003, 12:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ Feb 11 2003, 12:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll just stick with
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." -Scott Adams<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sums my view up perfectly!
-EDIT- Scott Adams you rule!!! -EDIT- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Welcome to the Dogbert Show. Today I talk about getting the government off our backs. I dream of a world where someday you can buy liquor, cigarettes and firearms at a drive-thru window and use the all before you get home. Basically, anything that gets rid of people is okay with me. But before you go, buy my new book...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- I've been thinking how wonderful it would be if all people renounced violence forever. - That's a beautiful thought, Dogbert. - If nobody else was violent, I could conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter knife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway, as others were saying, it's fun to shoot. I don't see why that should be outlawed. But .. well nvm
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Feb 10 2003, 03:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Feb 10 2003, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If a burgalar was in your home, and he drew a blade on you and was attacking, would you be such avid anti-firearm supporters? I think not. It's about survival at that point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Personally, I'm a fencer, and keep my 3-foot foil next to my bed, simply because my room is a mess, so I'm good.
Botom line is, if Presedent X had the support of the army, and wanted to throw the country into a dictatorship, there's not a thing you could do about it. Sure, you could slow them down, maybe take out a few troops, but what will you do when 5 US rangers, with combined 20+ years of experience, show up at your door? Shoot them? maybe, but you're trying, with a handgun, to inflict damage on a man wearing kevlar that will stop a 7.62 mm round, fired from a rifle. Most military-grade vests can take 9 of such rounds before they are rendered useless, so I've been told on the Firearms Half life Weapons forum.
What it comes down to is: Do you think it's nescesary for you to bear a firearm to protect yourself or loved ones?
It comes down to opinion. If you want to bear arms, fine. Should the government control high-end assault weapons? Yes.
Botom line is, if Presedent X had the support of the army, and wanted to throw the country into a dictatorship, there's not a thing you could do about it. Sure, you could slow them down, maybe take out a few troops, but what will you do when 5 US rangers, with combined 20+ years of experience, show up at your door? Shoot them? maybe, but you're trying, with a handgun, to inflict damage on a man wearing kevlar that will stop a 7.62 mm round, fired from a rifle. Most military-grade vests can take 9 of such rounds before they are rendered useless, so I've been told on the Firearms Half life Weapons forum.
What it comes down to is: Do you think it's nescesary for you to bear a firearm to protect yourself or loved ones?
It comes down to opinion. If you want to bear arms, fine. Should the government control high-end assault weapons? Yes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually Military armor can not stop a 7.62 round, unless its from 800m + they are designed to stop shrapnel, the will stop a .38 at point blank range( 0-22 feet), but will not stop a .44 .45 or .50 at the same range.
Military stats for losses durring urban entry are 8 out of 10.
means a Squad of 10 men entering a house is expected to lose 8.
Also, a handgun is used as a last resort I would fire my 1oz Sabot slugs from my benelli M3 (threaded barrel) they can defeat a police cruser door and the vest of the man hiding behind it (I got a video of myself shooting said slugs THROUGH a water heater from 30 feet) then I would collect the ammo and equipment of the deaders and move on.
Anyway everyone knows it would be useless to fight against the military, the point is if everyone is armed the "losses" sustained to population/military/ and equipment will outweigh any gains made by converting toa dictator ship, its a deterent not a solution to said problem.
A 30.06 round is not likely to be stopped by anything short of Class III Body Armor, and at that it depends on the weapon it is fired from, meaning the velocity that it is traveling upon impact. Range has a strong effect on that of course.
If you want to stop something like a PSG-1 sniper rifle bullet, you're gonna have to get behind a concrete slab with some Cl.3 armor, and even then do a little praying. If you want to stop a Kalashnikov 7.62, you're more likely to survive unscathed since it has a much smaller propellant capacity and therefore a lower velocity at a given range. Of course, the type of round (not caliber), whether it be Hollow Point, RN, FN, FMJ, or <insert type here> will greatly determine the outcome of the contact.
Remember: you don't need to kill someone to stop them from acting in a fight. If you shoot someone in the shoulder, head (grazing or non-mortal wound), or get a good chunk of their leg or arm in a shot; only the most resilient and determined of soldiers will still fight on. Even at that, they would not be at the performance level that the could be at if not wounded. In war it is better to wound your enemy than to kill him - a wounded man needs 2 men to carry him off the battlefield. A dead man needs none.
If the military decided to conquer and make a tyranny, private citizens with guns would be able to do jack. Ok, so your 1oz Sabot slug? what good would that do against an F-16 doing a flyby of napalm after you and your "gun buddies" killed a squad of soldiers.
Problem: A town is resisting occupation. They've killed 4-5 squads. Solution: 120mm HE and Napalm.
Problem: A single house is resisting. Solution: Wire-guided anti-tank missiles.
Either way, your still f**ked.
What good would your guns do you then, eh? If a tyranny rises to power, more power to them, because perhaps we might get something done instead of quibbling.
and we should require gun licenses just to own weapons
and greyfox, while it's bad that your friend died, are you sure a gun would've helped? would she have been able to react quick enough to stop the situation from escalating into what it did?
The basis of guerilla warfare is hit-and-run, ambushes, booby-traps, and things of the sort. It is to go against organized military structures when one has significantly smaller numbers or power. Whether you kill or merely wound a man has no play on how it is done.
Spartacus used guerilla warfare tactics in the days of the Roman Empire, and was <b>very</b> successful. His demise came when he began using the Roman Phalanx strategy to fight the Legions at their own game - which <i>no one</i> in the world at that time could win at...shoulda stuck to ambushings and guerilla warfare, ol' Sparty boy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 11 2003, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 11 2003, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But tell me, how often have you been in such a situation? How often have your friends? How many people do you know who were attacked by an armed criminal, and how many of them were able to defend themselves with a gun? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I still stand by my argument. No matter what anyone says about the low possibility that this situation COULD happen and that it HASN'T happened yet does not not deter me.
The FACT is that it COULD happen. even if there is a 0.00000001% chance that I will be put in that situation it doesn't mean **** when you are that 0.00000001%. If the only way to defend yourself reasonably against a gun is with a gun, then to deny a person a firearm is just plain wrong. PERIOD. whether the use of said weapon is to deter a personal attack or political one that is meant to seperate you from life and liberty, and wether you would chose to use the weapon or not to defend yourself against said situation. It doesn't matter. It is your right to be able to defend yourself by any means possible against that.
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>To everyone who would say, "You don't stand a chance against military oppressors."
I say this:
I should have the right to own weapons because even if I cannot win, I can effectively put up a resistance. Should I die, I die on my own terms fighting for my rights, fighting for my freedoms. How could this be wrong?<span style='color:white'>[/edit]</span>
Dezmodium, when your ownership of said firearm puts others at harm it means that your firearms should be controlled.
Guns don't stop at house-walls. Hell, out here in Vt, a guy was hit in the head by a rifle...from a hunter who missed his deer.
From discussions i've had with my friends and from this discussion, i've come to the painful conclusion that people who think private ownership of assault class weaponry is ok will never be swayed.
And for the people who own a gun for the sheer point of putting holes in paper...you are ok, I'll admit it must be a great stress reliever to fire a gun and you don't need AK47's and CAR-15's to shoot targets.
Hmmm, I like the arguments here. Interesting. Especially the whole "equilizer" thing. Let me comment on that:
Lets say guns are totally outlawed, and done very well so that not even criminals can get them. Then lets say a thief gets into my apartment/home. I am not a very strong guy and I wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. He could take whatever he wanted and be gone before the cops got arrived. He would have to be pretty strong, but really not that strong cause I'm a weak guy. What if I were handicapped? What if he had a knife? In fact, a month ago some guy walked into my dormroom and stole my roommates PDA while we were sleeping. Of course, guns aren't allowed in my dorm, and we should have been locking the door, but yeah, thieves exist. There's nothing rare about a thief. I'd like a gun just for that reassurance. After reading some of these arguments, I think I'm much more willing to believe that everyone is safer with guns.
As far as the whole argument about being able to defend yourself against your government, yeah, it could happen, but most people just use it as an excuse for guns. I'm not willing to support that argument.
Also, guns sole purpose is not just for killing people. I don't understand where in the world that argument came from. I'd guess that a good percentage (I have no idea how much) of people who buy guns do it for shooting, which is not a rare sport at all. Its insanely fun to shoot some targets with an actual gun, and not just simulate it on a video game.
I can the reason behind Someone Who Cares logic. But I pose a question to you, Mr./Ms. Someone.
are possession really worth shooting and possibly killing someone? The entire point of house insurance is that when you do get robbed you get reimbursed
A few years back my house was robbed. They took the VCR, my Sega Genesis, my GameBoy, basically anything that could be sold on the black market. After wards, you know what enhanced security measures we took? we locked the door at night. No new locks or anything.
To have your house robbed is nothing special, and certainly not worth possible lawsuit or prison time. They are possessions, and sure, you might have an emotional attachment but one can easily give up possessions.
And to the guy who said "they could be robbing my house, and then catch sight of my sister/daughter/wife/mother naked in bed" or something like that, do you think a robber will honestly risk going from 3-6 years in a medium or minimum security prison to Life in a Maximum (read: big buff guys with lots of libido and no women) security prison?
Oy, and if your so worried about someone hurting you, think of how they feel when they see a shotgun pointed at them when all they have is a penknive for cutting cords. Your just in love with the fact that you are the "Big Man (or woman)" with the power of life and death over someone.
And just for clarification, small "weak" people can still wield a blade pretty effectively. Just has to be the right blade.
My "rape" senario was just a "nightmare" example, my main point is that we are responsible adults who must suffer the consequences of our actions, and I dont needs someone in government telling me what is or isnt safe for my own well being. If I choose to smoke crack, its my choice, If I rob someone to get money for said crack I should go to jail and suffer my consequences. If I chose to own a weapon its my choice, If I hurt someone with it unjustly I should go to jail and suffer the consequences.
Its called exostentializim (spelling) "We are responsible for our own well being and our own actions. We create our own destiny and our own lives."
I dont need someone else telling me what is or isnt good for ME <-- that is my desicion and should always remain that way.
Thats the bottom line in this debate, we should be responsible for what we do, and not rely on other to make life desicions for us.
Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 02:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen to that, but keep in mind that the drunk chose to get drunk, and therefore should be ready to face the consequences, if he stumbles into a gun nuts house and gets a face full of lead, he wont be around to regret what he did, but trust me the man behind the trigger would. Also you make desicions all the time that affect others in major ways, if you wear sneakers or drive a car, or drink coffee you contribute to the pain and suffering of all the exploited people involved in the production of said products.
I just think there should be room in this world for us to live without baby sitters(not to be take literally <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ), however I do understand that we are very far from that.
I think that control who have a gun is important because all the people don´t want to have a gun to protect theirselves . They use the guns for things that all we know. But a control without education about the danger and consecuencies about use a gun, is a lose war
<!--QuoteBegin--GreyPaws+Feb 12 2003, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Feb 12 2003, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 02:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen to that, but keep in mind that the drunk chose to get drunk, and therefore should be ready to face the consequences, [...] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now you take my example as literally as others took your 'daughter on bed' example.
What we both agree on was summed up quite nicely by Bill Hicks:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it your business what I do with my body, mind, or soul as long as I don't harm another human being?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fire arms, however, <i>do</i> harm other human beings, it's - no matter what you tell me about self defense, sport, or style - their main and original purpose. Therefore, they become subject to the society and its rules.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And by the buglar coming into your house at knight with a deadly weapon how can you be so sure that he hasn't already made the decision for you that your life is going to end that night.
It comes back around NEM.
I hold true that <b>"Self-preservation is the highest law"</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 12:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 12:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hmmm, good point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can the reason behind Someone Who Cares logic. But I pose a question to you, Mr./Ms. Someone.
are possession really worth shooting and possibly killing someone? The entire point of house insurance is that when you do get robbed you get reimbursed
A few years back my house was robbed. They took the VCR, my Sega Genesis, my GameBoy, basically anything that could be sold on the black market. After wards, you know what enhanced security measures we took? we locked the door at night. No new locks or anything.
To have your house robbed is nothing special, and certainly not worth possible lawsuit or prison time. They are possessions, and sure, you might have an emotional attachment but one can easily give up possessions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see where you're getting at, but I doubt it would ever be necessary to kill the intruder. All you would have to do is point it at them and they would be out of there in a split-second (unless they are very brave/stupid) and if you think that someone would shoot the intruder before he got the chance to leave, you've got some pretty low opinions about the human race <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> I don't think anyone who buys a gun for protection actually expects to discharge it. Remember "guns don't kill people, people kill people" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Someone Who Cares+Feb 12 2003, 08:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Someone Who Cares @ Feb 12 2003, 08:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All you would have to do is point it at them and they would be out of there in a split-second (unless they are very brave/stupid) and if you think that someone would shoot the intruder before he got the chance to leave, you've got some pretty low opinions about the human race <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The sad thing is in the US, by our gun laws, one <b>cannot</b> point a gun at ANYONE unless they intend to kill them. Also, specifically you are not allowed to point a gun at a buglar simply to "scare them away".
But
Do you really think they are gunna go to the police and try to tell on you? Imagine the robber trying to explain that situation.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dezmodium+Feb 12 2003, 08:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dezmodium @ Feb 12 2003, 08:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 07:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 07:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sure, but one might argue that by using a gun, you're going to make <i>the</i> life descision for someone else, be he a burglar or a drunk who accidentally entered the wrong door. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And by the buglar coming into your house at knight with a deadly weapon how can you be so sure that he hasn't already made the decision for you that your life is going to end that night. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, that's a possibility. But as I said before, the only way of making <i>absolutely</i> sure you're not going to die tomorrow is dying today. Statistically, it's so friggin unlikely to be attacked by an armed psycho within your own home that you might just as well start fearing the sky falling on your head.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It comes back around NEM.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no need to get all caps lock, is there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hold true that <b>"Self-preservation is the highest law"</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you assume that the human hasn't evolved above the animal.
Comments
Though the most fun I have had is my spud gun, to be honest - a few years back I made that sucker. You can go around shooting dumpsters and buildings and not have to worrya bout killing someone. Also when you hit a dumpster, for example, it goes *BANG* and leaves a big white potassium/starch stain -- not to mention you don't have to worry about bullets bouncing off the surface and <i>zing</i>ing back at you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." -Scott Adams<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sums my view up perfectly!
-EDIT- Scott Adams you rule!!! -EDIT-
I actually can't believe people still use this as a valid argument... "...but the other guy has it too, Mom, I have to have one!"
And, accroding to your logic, Dez, Sadam should be allowed all the nuclear weapons he wants to have because the US has them too and it is his right to pull even for purposes of "defence" because quite obviously the US poses a thread to him. This is such a Cold War mentality.
I am quite sure you wouldn't Sadam to have those weapons, but then again, how could you deny anything as long as the US has it too? One could say that he is "evil" and not trustworthy, but then again who said all the gunowners in the US were?
As long as I don't think a person has the MER (nice abreviation), I wouldn't trust him with a gun. Teaching this responsibility in school would be a good way to start, if you can't get rid your beloved guns.
Something random.
If someone DID invade the US, near the south, they wont get vary far. Constant sniper and deer rifle attacks coming from forests, rednecks in fords with shotguns, plus If they came into Alabama, we would just break into the Mobile Armory....which is like 1/2 from my house.
For the sake of my sanity, I'd like to sum the points in here made up into seperate argumentations. This of course bears the danger of me discussing into the wrong direction, if that happens, sorry.
Main Argument 1: <b>Personal Defense.</b>
I believe Dez brought the 'burglar in your house / criminal on the street' scenarioes to its common denominator when he said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You think I shouldn't be able to defend myself against those with guns? Why not? how could I ever defend myself against a person with a gun if do not have one myself? should I then make illegal bombs and other weapons that are unreliable to defend myself. Homemade weapons which have a very high potential of backfiring and going off when you do not want them to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically, you say that as there are people who can threaten you with a weapon, you should be allowed the right to posses said kind of weapon in order to defend yourself, correct?
But tell me, how often have you been in such a situation? How often have your friends? How many people do you know who were attacked by an armed criminal, and how many of them were able to defend themselves with a gun?
I mean, maybe life's really different on your side of the Atlantic, but I lived my eighteen years one earth without of <i>one</i> hold-up.
Sure, small statistical chances don't mean that you can happen to be one of the unfortunate few who get attacked by a criminal, but I'd like to establish that it's not necessary to take the risk of getting attacked by an armed goon for granted.
Follow me so far?
Of course, and I'm sure you'll point me to it, this all doesn't really qualify as an argument for gun control - one may still argue that it's best to prepare for the worst case, but I believe that the original argument doesn't serve against gun control, either:
First, as I already implied in the part above, the risk of getting into such situations just does really not stand in any kind of relation to the weight this argument is given in the whole discussion.
Second, to catch on to Ramses' argumentation, even if you get into a 'burglar in your house' situation, what is the intention of a normal criminal?
Your property, not your life.
No matter what the news make you believe, there are only <i>very</i> few maniacs who try to injure / kill you for no reason at all out there - the biggest part is really not after you, but after your belongings.
Now, while this is still nothing very nice, this means that, if you decide to shoot at someone who's broken into your house, you most certainly try to kill / injure someone in defense of your property, <i>not</i> in defense of your or your families lifes.
Self defense? Not likely.
So, to sum it up, yes, there <i>is</i> a chance of being threatened to your life by an armed criminal, and there's also a chance of being able to defend yourself with your weapon, but, for comparisons sake, there's also a chance of getting hit by lightning.
Main Argument 2: <b>Political Defense</b>
To quote Dez again:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"But, we don't need guns in america because we aren't being oprressed." That's exactly right. And if we keep our guns we ensure that we never will be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Leaving the question whether 'you' are or are not being opressed aside (I'm sure you'd be suprised by the notion of an american muslim on that), this argument is of course deeply routed in the American history - after all, one might ask, what would've happened if the British would've institutionalized gun controls in the colonies?
And then, one can go on and list a whole bunch of cases in which people without of guns were opressed.
On the other hand, can you name any recent armed uprisings that were successful in the sense that they greatly improved the situation of the people in the country in question?
Thinking back at the great, truly great 'revolutions' of the last fifty years, they all, from Ghandis libartion of India, over Martin Luther Kings fight against seggregation and the fall of the Wall in Berlin to the end of Milosevics reign in Serbia were achieved without of violent means.
Why is this so?
Because the gun has lost its role as "equalizer", as Onuma put it.
Face it, in a time of Abrahms, F-16s, cruise missiles, SAMs, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (not to mention the stuff that'll be introduced within the next ten years), it's just impossible for the civil population of a country to obtain weaponry that can even remotely compete with that of the possible opressors.
Armed uprisings, especially in the United States, are fated to fail, no matter how just the cause.
There are new ways - my favorite of them being the 'passive resistance', of which none involves a gun.
Any history book will show you that they aren't some hippies dream, but as (or even more) possible than grabbing your gun and being shot down for freedom.
Main Argument 3: <b>Guns are cool</b>
You got me there. Yes, guns are cool, yes, they are aesthetical, yes, they are craftsmanship. No doubt about any of these.
I can, although I wouldn't practice it myself, understand that shooting can be considered a sport.
None of these reasons do however really change something about the arguments against weapon control - Germany, where such laws are passed, has its gun collectors, it has its sports shooters. None of them are severely limited by gun control legislation - unless they decide to try and collect nukes...
I guess I could write more, but experience shows that I shouldn't, as I'd a) start talking crap, and b) wouldn't be read anyway.
I noticed you did not mention education, nor the proffessions that use firearms in their day to day.
Also you forget to mention that the state of California, and a great majority of other states in the union considder the home to be a sacred place
<a href='http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf' target='_blank'>http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf</a>
the comlete DOC and here is trhe quote we are interested in:
"Protecting One’s Home
A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent
manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be
used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable
person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to
retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force,
increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances
apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation
to fear for his or her safety.
The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible
and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in
the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a
forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and © the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary
to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem,
rape, and <b>robbery</b> are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."
Robbery constitutes a reason to use letha force. Also you may notice that you "dont have to retreat, even if its safe" Your home is your temple, defend it with your life.
Anyway read my previous post plz
The idea of 'gun education' is an interesting one I have not informed myself enough to take a final stance, so all I can offer are my first impressions (i.e.: I'm about to start talking out of my butt.):
First, I'd like to note that your notion about gun control being a thing mainly supported by the "religious right" isn't correct: I, like many other people advocating gun control, couldn't be farther from their opions.
Aside from that, I principially agree that a kind of education for the gun should be put in place - you also have to get yourself a driving license before sitting behind the steering wheel, after all. If personal weapon ownership was to be kept legal - and let me repeat that I couldn't oppose this more - it'd be a step to at least somewhat reduce the danger from firearms.
Now, to that quote. Thanks for bringing it up, I'll be sure to read it all.
I really find it interesting how Paines (Paynes) words are even today literaly part of legislation, which of course makes my point about them being a metaphor also applicable on the whole law.
Aside from that, am I the only one who sees a distinct contradiction between "A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home." and "[...]and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."?
I mean, robbery is defined as being the removal of property by intimidation, <i>not</i> the actual action of violence, which would fill an additional charge. How is that life threatening?
Robbery is just defined as an act that warrents self defense, if you read the entire 'book' on self defense, it basically says if you manage to convince a jury of your peers that your actions were justified, then they were.
The main argument they make is that when a person enters your home violently (viloent entry is any entry that is not authorized by the people occupying the home) you have no Idea what his/her intentions are. You are not required to flee, therefore you can do anything in your power to stop them, so long as you can convince a jury that your actions warrented whatever force you used. So lets say they broke in with the intent of stealing your stereo, but when they walked past your sisters bedroom they saw she was sleeping naked and desided to go rape her... bla bla bla Im sure I can make nightmare scenarios up forever.
Ill Also back down off the relegious right thing, I just threw that in to connect the AIDS argument since they WERE the ones who oppesed sex education in schools.
Since Im a gun owner I'm Biased toward no gun controll, but I'm willing to give up my weapons if the entire world decided one day to melt them all and build schools or some such. But so long as guns continue to exist in the hands of some, I feel that EVERYONE needs to have fair access to em.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I believe everyody in the world should have guns. Citizens should have bazookas and rocket launchers too. I believe that all citizens should have their weapons of choice. However, I also believe that only I should have the ammunition. Because frankly, I wouldn't trust the rest of the goobers with anything more dangerous than string." -Scott Adams<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sums my view up perfectly!
-EDIT- Scott Adams you rule!!! -EDIT- <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Welcome to the Dogbert Show. Today I talk about getting the government off our backs.
I dream of a world where someday you can buy liquor, cigarettes and firearms at a drive-thru window and use the all before you get home.
Basically, anything that gets rid of people is okay with me. But before you go, buy my new book...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- I've been thinking how wonderful it would be if all people renounced violence forever.
- That's a beautiful thought, Dogbert.
- If nobody else was violent, I could conquer the whole stupid planet with just a butter knife.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyway, as others were saying, it's fun to shoot. I don't see why that should be outlawed. But .. well nvm
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Personally, I'm a fencer, and keep my 3-foot foil next to my bed, simply because my room is a mess, so I'm good.
Botom line is, if Presedent X had the support of the army, and wanted to throw the country into a dictatorship, there's not a thing you could do about it. Sure, you could slow them down, maybe take out a few troops, but what will you do when 5 US rangers, with combined 20+ years of experience, show up at your door? Shoot them? maybe, but you're trying, with a handgun, to inflict damage on a man wearing kevlar that will stop a 7.62 mm round, fired from a rifle. Most military-grade vests can take 9 of such rounds before they are rendered useless, so I've been told on the Firearms Half life Weapons forum.
What it comes down to is: Do you think it's nescesary for you to bear a firearm to protect yourself or loved ones?
It comes down to opinion. If you want to bear arms, fine. Should the government control high-end assault weapons? Yes.
Botom line is, if Presedent X had the support of the army, and wanted to throw the country into a dictatorship, there's not a thing you could do about it. Sure, you could slow them down, maybe take out a few troops, but what will you do when 5 US rangers, with combined 20+ years of experience, show up at your door? Shoot them? maybe, but you're trying, with a handgun, to inflict damage on a man wearing kevlar that will stop a 7.62 mm round, fired from a rifle. Most military-grade vests can take 9 of such rounds before they are rendered useless, so I've been told on the Firearms Half life Weapons forum.
What it comes down to is: Do you think it's nescesary for you to bear a firearm to protect yourself or loved ones?
It comes down to opinion. If you want to bear arms, fine. Should the government control high-end assault weapons? Yes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Military armor can not stop a 7.62 round, unless its from 800m + they are designed to stop shrapnel, the will stop a .38 at point blank range( 0-22 feet), but will not stop a .44 .45 or .50 at the same range.
Military stats for losses durring urban entry are 8 out of 10.
means a Squad of 10 men entering a house is expected to lose 8.
Also, a handgun is used as a last resort I would fire my 1oz Sabot slugs from my benelli M3 (threaded barrel) they can defeat a police cruser door and the vest of the man hiding behind it (I got a video of myself shooting said slugs THROUGH a water heater from 30 feet) then I would collect the ammo and equipment of the deaders and move on.
Anyway everyone knows it would be useless to fight against the military, the point is if everyone is armed the "losses" sustained to population/military/ and equipment will outweigh any gains made by converting toa dictator ship, its a deterent not a solution to said problem.
If you want to stop something like a PSG-1 sniper rifle bullet, you're gonna have to get behind a concrete slab with some Cl.3 armor, and even then do a little praying. If you want to stop a Kalashnikov 7.62, you're more likely to survive unscathed since it has a much smaller propellant capacity and therefore a lower velocity at a given range. Of course, the type of round (not caliber), whether it be Hollow Point, RN, FN, FMJ, or <insert type here> will greatly determine the outcome of the contact.
Remember: you don't need to kill someone to stop them from acting in a fight. If you shoot someone in the shoulder, head (grazing or non-mortal wound), or get a good chunk of their leg or arm in a shot; only the most resilient and determined of soldiers will still fight on. Even at that, they would not be at the performance level that the could be at if not wounded.
In war it is better to wound your enemy than to kill him - a wounded man needs 2 men to carry him off the battlefield. A dead man needs none.
Problem: A town is resisting occupation. They've killed 4-5 squads.
Solution: 120mm HE and Napalm.
Problem: A single house is resisting.
Solution: Wire-guided anti-tank missiles.
Either way, your still f**ked.
What good would your guns do you then, eh? If a tyranny rises to power, more power to them, because perhaps we might get something done instead of quibbling.
and we should require gun licenses just to own weapons
and greyfox, while it's bad that your friend died, are you sure a gun would've helped? would she have been able to react quick enough to stop the situation from escalating into what it did?
And Onuma, that's the basic of Guerilla Warfare
Spartacus used guerilla warfare tactics in the days of the Roman Empire, and was <b>very</b> successful. His demise came when he began using the Roman Phalanx strategy to fight the Legions at their own game - which <i>no one</i> in the world at that time could win at...shoulda stuck to ambushings and guerilla warfare, ol' Sparty boy.
I still stand by my argument. No matter what anyone says about the low possibility that this situation COULD happen and that it HASN'T happened yet does not not deter me.
The FACT is that it COULD happen. even if there is a 0.00000001% chance that I will be put in that situation it doesn't mean **** when you are that 0.00000001%. If the only way to defend yourself reasonably against a gun is with a gun, then to deny a person a firearm is just plain wrong. PERIOD. whether the use of said weapon is to deter a personal attack or political one that is meant to seperate you from life and liberty, and wether you would chose to use the weapon or not to defend yourself against said situation. It doesn't matter. It is your right to be able to defend yourself by any means possible against that.
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>To everyone who would say, "You don't stand a chance against military oppressors."
I say this:
I should have the right to own weapons because even if I cannot win, I can effectively put up a resistance. Should I die, I die on my own terms fighting for my rights, fighting for my freedoms. How could this be wrong?<span style='color:white'>[/edit]</span>
Guns don't stop at house-walls. Hell, out here in Vt, a guy was hit in the head by a rifle...from a hunter who missed his deer.
From discussions i've had with my friends and from this discussion, i've come to the painful conclusion that people who think private ownership of assault class weaponry is ok will never be swayed.
And for the people who own a gun for the sheer point of putting holes in paper...you are ok, I'll admit it must be a great stress reliever to fire a gun and you don't need AK47's and CAR-15's to shoot targets.
Lets say guns are totally outlawed, and done very well so that not even criminals can get them. Then lets say a thief gets into my apartment/home. I am not a very strong guy and I wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. He could take whatever he wanted and be gone before the cops got arrived. He would have to be pretty strong, but really not that strong cause I'm a weak guy. What if I were handicapped? What if he had a knife? In fact, a month ago some guy walked into my dormroom and stole my roommates PDA while we were sleeping. Of course, guns aren't allowed in my dorm, and we should have been locking the door, but yeah, thieves exist. There's nothing rare about a thief. I'd like a gun just for that reassurance. After reading some of these arguments, I think I'm much more willing to believe that everyone is safer with guns.
As far as the whole argument about being able to defend yourself against your government, yeah, it could happen, but most people just use it as an excuse for guns. I'm not willing to support that argument.
Also, guns sole purpose is not just for killing people. I don't understand where in the world that argument came from. I'd guess that a good percentage (I have no idea how much) of people who buy guns do it for shooting, which is not a rare sport at all. Its insanely fun to shoot some targets with an actual gun, and not just simulate it on a video game.
are possession really worth shooting and possibly killing someone? The entire point of house insurance is that when you do get robbed you get reimbursed
A few years back my house was robbed. They took the VCR, my Sega Genesis, my GameBoy, basically anything that could be sold on the black market. After wards, you know what enhanced security measures we took? we locked the door at night. No new locks or anything.
To have your house robbed is nothing special, and certainly not worth possible lawsuit or prison time. They are possessions, and sure, you might have an emotional attachment but one can easily give up possessions.
And to the guy who said "they could be robbing my house, and then catch sight of my sister/daughter/wife/mother naked in bed" or something like that, do you think a robber will honestly risk going from 3-6 years in a medium or minimum security prison to Life in a Maximum (read: big buff guys with lots of libido and no women) security prison?
Oy, and if your so worried about someone hurting you, think of how they feel when they see a shotgun pointed at them when all they have is a penknive for cutting cords. Your just in love with the fact that you are the "Big Man (or woman)" with the power of life and death over someone.
And just for clarification, small "weak" people can still wield a blade pretty effectively. Just has to be the right blade.
Its called exostentializim (spelling) "We are responsible for our own well being and our own actions. We create our own destiny and our own lives."
I dont need someone else telling me what is or isnt good for ME <-- that is my desicion and should always remain that way.
Thats the bottom line in this debate, we should be responsible for what we do, and not rely on other to make life desicions for us.
Amen to that, but keep in mind that the drunk chose to get drunk, and therefore should be ready to face the consequences, if he stumbles into a gun nuts house and gets a face full of lead, he wont be around to regret what he did, but trust me the man behind the trigger would. Also you make desicions all the time that affect others in major ways, if you wear sneakers or drive a car, or drink coffee you contribute to the pain and suffering of all the exploited people involved in the production of said products.
I just think there should be room in this world for us to live without baby sitters(not to be take literally <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ), however I do understand that we are very far from that.
Amen to that, but keep in mind that the drunk chose to get drunk, and therefore should be ready to face the consequences, [...] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you take my example as literally as others took your 'daughter on bed' example.
What we both agree on was summed up quite nicely by Bill Hicks:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it your business what I do with my body, mind, or soul as long as I don't harm another human being?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fire arms, however, <i>do</i> harm other human beings, it's - no matter what you tell me about self defense, sport, or style - their main and original purpose.
Therefore, they become subject to the society and its rules.
And by the buglar coming into your house at knight with a deadly weapon how can you be so sure that he hasn't already made the decision for you that your life is going to end that night.
It comes back around NEM.
I hold true that <b>"Self-preservation is the highest law"</b>
Hmmm, good point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I can the reason behind Someone Who Cares logic. But I pose a question to you, Mr./Ms. Someone.
are possession really worth shooting and possibly killing someone? The entire point of house insurance is that when you do get robbed you get reimbursed
A few years back my house was robbed. They took the VCR, my Sega Genesis, my GameBoy, basically anything that could be sold on the black market. After wards, you know what enhanced security measures we took? we locked the door at night. No new locks or anything.
To have your house robbed is nothing special, and certainly not worth possible lawsuit or prison time. They are possessions, and sure, you might have an emotional attachment but one can easily give up possessions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see where you're getting at, but I doubt it would ever be necessary to kill the intruder. All you would have to do is point it at them and they would be out of there in a split-second (unless they are very brave/stupid) and if you think that someone would shoot the intruder before he got the chance to leave, you've got some pretty low opinions about the human race <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> I don't think anyone who buys a gun for protection actually expects to discharge it. Remember "guns don't kill people, people kill people" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
The sad thing is in the US, by our gun laws, one <b>cannot</b> point a gun at ANYONE unless they intend to kill them. Also, specifically you are not allowed to point a gun at a buglar simply to "scare them away".
But
Do you really think they are gunna go to the police and try to tell on you? Imagine the robber trying to explain that situation.
And by the buglar coming into your house at knight with a deadly weapon how can you be so sure that he hasn't already made the decision for you that your life is going to end that night. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that's a possibility. But as I said before, the only way of making <i>absolutely</i> sure you're not going to die tomorrow is dying today.
Statistically, it's so friggin unlikely to be attacked by an armed psycho within your own home that you might just as well start fearing the sky falling on your head.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It comes back around NEM.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no need to get all caps lock, is there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hold true that <b>"Self-preservation is the highest law"</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only if you assume that the human hasn't evolved above the animal.