Why so much attention towards assault rifles? They're hardly used in crimes at all in Western nations. To me they seem more like a really expensive hobby. Most criminals are sporting a rusty .22 pistol they stole from their neighbor's garage.
As an American, one thing seems clear to me: there is a cognitive disconnect between rural and urban areas. "Reasonable" people in the city are quick to point out the danger of hitting somebody else, or how you should leave it to the police. I'm sypathetic to a lot of these arguments if you live in a city, although I think certain groups of people definitely should consider a concealed handgun. Most people probably won't benefit from carrying a weapon, and a rifle in a city seems unnecessary and dangerous.
On the other hand, if you live in the middle of Montana, most of these issues are downright ridiculous if they are applied to you. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places in the US that don't even have phones or cell service, much less a 3 minute police response. My folks had a cabin in a place where if you got hurt, it was going to take a loooong time to get help... someone was going to have travel to a phone, and then a helicopter would be sent. We're talking hours here. In these places, effectively, there is no law. (There also isn't a whole lot of crime, due to the absence of people.) But when problems arise of any nature, you're on your own. I've personally run into a bears a couple of times where, had they threatened me, a firearm would have been useful. In my case they left me alone, but that's in Washington state where bears are smaller and less aggressive. Cougars are plenty aggressive but much more rare. I think the Canadians are nuts for having a universal ban on handguns, with so much open territory with some very formidible wildlife. I think they let you carry a rifle, but man, what a pain considering you'll probably only need that big heavy object once or twice in your life.
It isn't fair to require people in rural areas to disarm, or even limit them to rifles. Why should a backpacker or an old lady chopping wood have to pack around a huge hunting rifle, when all that is needed is a reliable large caliber revolver?
There are even areas to consider where not only is there no law, but a HIGH probability of crime. This applies especially to ocean-going vessels. Head out into international waters, and I'd probably feel naked even with an assault rifle. I'd probably be looking to pick up some kind of a deck gun if I could.
Maybe we need to focus less on a one-size-fits all approach. There are a lot of people in the world with a lot of different lifestyles and situations. Inner-city Chicago is about as different from a small mountain community as the surface of Mars.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Feb 12 2003, 09:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Feb 12 2003, 09:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, didnt notice. Wasnt trying to get all huffy puffy.
any how
I really cant see what would be higher than preserving oneself and ones family. please elaborate
You bring up a good point, but the problem is the equality issue: A law that can't be applied to all people equally has the life expectancy of me in Montana.
I'd like to note that there are ways of keeping 'rural' dangers under control in a 'gunless' environment - here in Germany for example, there is a whole profession of 'rangers' which have the sole purpose of keeping possibly agressive animals away from humans. The system works well even in areas with a high density of carnivorous animals like wolves and bears.
[edit]Sorry Dez, but where I am, it's already too late. Tomorrow, k?[/edit]
Weapons in general were first used to help with hunting by primitive man. As with everything else in this world there is a positive, and negative aspect. You say guns are designed to hurt people, well there are plenty of olympic gold medalist ski-shoot-ski shooters who'd disagree with you.
Nuclear powers was also supposed to be used for good, yet we dropped 2 bombs as you may know, and caused a surge in cancer in the southwestern united states.
The argument that "guns are bad, because they were made to kill" is not a valid one, becuase it still takes a person (one who is ultimatley responsible for his or her own actions) to operate the trigger.
Actually, according to Dinesh D'Souza, former Regan Senior Domestic Policy Analyst, as he writes in Letters to a Young Conservative, a report was found by a college researcher (forget the name, sorry) that finds that more guns in a country equals less crime in a county. Also, current gun laws try to take guns from the hands of LEGAL owners, not the criminals who use them for malcious intent.
Also, anyone who cites "Bowling for Columbine" and Michael Moore as a legitamate documentary needs to get a clue. I don't feel like elaborating here, but read up: <a href='http://www.moorewatch.com' target='_blank'>Moorewathc</a>
<!--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-->finds that more guns in a country equals less crime in a county. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Broad issues like this can't be simplified into an equation like that. There are way too many variables, and no ability to gather enough accurate data.
Some countries have high firearm ownership, and low crime, some score high in both.
Weapons aside, nothing breeds crime like poverty and lack of opportunity. When you take a large group of people and make it so they have nothing to lose, the fun begins. Available weapons and laws are just details. A yuppie suburb with 99% well-off tech workers, five angry youths, and a normal police force is going to have low crime whether the techies have firearms or not. Its hard to say if an elephant whistle scares them away if there's no elephants on your continent. On the other hand, if you have 200,000 people living in two square miles of garbage, with no food, running water, medical care, or jobs, and tempers are flaring and death is coming one way or the other, you're going to have people slitting each other's throats even if you outlaw pillow fighting.
I think there needs to be more effective localized law-making applicable to the circumstances of an area, rather than broad-sweeping legislation across city and praire alike. In theory this is how it is supposed to happen, but when it doesn't, people try to ram things through at higher levels, which messes things up for people in other areas.
In terms of what you can carry around fully-assembled, people in cities perhaps should be limited to weapons that are shorter in range and penetration power. SWAT teams already do this somewhat- they'll use 9mm MP5s for a house raid instead of an AR15, so they don't shoot through five houses in one burst.
Rural areas need a little more punch because of lack of assistance, and the greater probability of having to drop a large animal. A grizzly bear is not going to go down from a 9mm, most likely. On the other hand, a person claiming to need a 30 '06 in downtown Manhattan is probably doing something more than self-defense.
It may be true that the amount of guns in a city or a country isn't directly related to the number of crimes. You layed down the facts on that pretty clear and obvious, bubbleblower, but it is a fact that number of people who died from firearm usage is driectly linked to the number of guns in uneducated hands, like those of the average citizen. As I said, if you can't live without the guns at least teach people how not use them. After all you don't let people drive around without a license because they could hurt someone. How can you let them have a firearm without ever teaching them the danger it poses.
<!--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 can you let them have a firearm without ever teaching them the danger it poses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree completely.
I think what has been going on in America is a tug-of-war between incompatible philosophies. On one side you have people that think if everyone was armed all the time, all problems would be fixed. These people even use their sidearms to open their cans of soda.
On the other side you have people that think we live in a magical fairy world where if children are sheltered from specific information about weapons, they'll never have an evil thought in their lives. These are probably the same people that think that if they never tell their kids about sex they'll never want to do it. (Nah, that's a just a low blow, and not true.)
At any rate, the result is that you have an existing set of laws where it is legal to own firearms, but completely taboo to talk about them! Our news stations will hardly even tell you what kind of weapon was used- they'll just put up a big graphic of the word "gun" in dripping blood red letters. Any attempt to suggest a way to responsibly own and care for firearms is taken as an endorsement to walk around shooting at anything that moves. So we end up with a bunch of kids who live in houses where these are kept, but barely know which end is which, and don't really comprehend the destructive power. Nor does anyone let them try it out in a safe environment to get it out of their system. I think most people who have shot a gun can see it for what it is- a mechanical tool that doesn't add or detract from your sexual attractiveness. But for kids who aren't allowed to ever get close to them, I think they build it up as if they'd have an orgasm just by touching one!
A lot of the adults in this country are being immature on both sides of the issue, instead of calming down and honestly discussing the pros and cons. There's no free ride either way.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Feb 12 2003, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 12 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, anyone who cites "Bowling for Columbine" and Michael Moore as a legitamate documentary needs to get a clue. I don't feel like elaborating here, but read up: <a href='http://www.moorewatch.com' target='_blank'>Moorewatch</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine" or read anything of Michael Moore.
All I can say is that after visiting your link, I'm pretty sure that he's much more credible than this site. It's not a good choice to post flame-mails against you if you want to be taken serious.
I agree with bubbleblower's post (the one about the urban/rural difference).
My father's family kept a revolver, probably a .44. It wasn't for fun shooting but rather to kill rattlesnakes and scare off wolves. They lived on a ranch in the middle of nowhere^98.
I'm applying to what I say to an urban area, roughly 20 persons/per square mile or greater.
The people in rural area's should be allowed to have rifles, low ammo capacity semi-auto's or bolt-actions. They could be bolt-action .50 BMG for all I care, because most likely they'll use them for hunting and getting rid of animals.
Gun control laws should be customized to each state/county as neccesary, as Wyoming has like a real small population, same for vermont, but New York is really populated in the center and bottom.
I don't see a need why people should be allowed to own *even for display* an Ak47, an mp5 or an m16.
Of course, I do believe federal bullet control is a reasonable alternative. The only place you'd be allowed to have ammo the Shooting Range (urban setting only). Once you reach city limits, ammo should flow like wine, but the second you enter an urban area you have to leave it behind or risk major (10,000$ +) fines and time in prison (medium security).
Onuma and GreyPaws, please stop making things up <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Class III body armor is the low end of "combat" armor, as it's basically at the point where you stop attempting to be concealable in favor of stopping bullets. According to the NIJ, it's rated to stop 6 rounds of .308 ammunition (the famous "PSG-1 sniper rifle bullet" you spoke of, Onuma) before it becomes ineffective... which implies more protection than you gave it credit for (since it doesn't require a huge concrete slab), and a hell of a lot more protection than GreyPaws claimed ("designed to stop shrapnel" <--- you're referring to a "flak vest", not body armor).
NO first-world military force pursues a doctrine with an EXPECTED fatality rate of 80 percent. That said, building entry is a fairly common part of urban combat... i hate to refer to movies, but Black Hawk Down has a couple of examples of building combat in it. Entering a heavily fortified, booby-trapped building is one thing... smashing in the door to a random building with a couple of shooters in it is another story entirely. A note: offensive hand grenades are quite handy in this situation, since you're much less likely to expose yourself to direct fire and yet still able to kill the guy in the next room.
Class IV armor is rated to stop a single round of .30-06 *armor piercing* ammunition, just as a reference point... this usually involves plates which fragment upon being struck, which nominally drops the armor to about Class III effectiveness after that first hit.
More on topic, there's a neglected part of American legal code that will probably be appalling to many people: it is legal, after doing some paperwork and paying 200 dollars to the government in addition to the purchasing cost of the weapon, to own a Class III weapon. This includes weapons capable of burst and autofire, suppressor-("silencer")equipped weapons, "destructive devices" (cut down shotguns, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowers, and the like), and pretty much any other politically incorrect device that you want. What are the restrictions? You have to be a non-felon, and a legal US resident who passes a background check... and you've got to be willing to do the paperwork and fork over the extra 200 bucks.
Seems ridiculous, no? Well... since 1935, when the laws putting these restrictions into effect were created, there have been a grand total of *two* felonies committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, making the legal ownership of these weapons less likely to kill somebody than some of the chemicals in OC/pepper spray.
It seems obvious to me, at least, that the problem here is the PEOPLE, and not the guns. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people..." cliche, but true. With the NFA owners (the class III people i was talking about), you have a bunch of *responsible* gun owners exercising their civil rights, having a lot of fun, and hurting nobody.
What it essentially comes down to is the person on the other end of the gun.
Do people die because of accidental shootings? Yes. The gun isn't what accidentally shot somebody... the person holding it was. Driving drunk isn't even a felony in the United States, despite the fact that it kills more people accidentally per year than firearms; the arguement against accidental death is therefore rendered kinda moot.
Do kids die because their parents leave a loaded gun in a place the kid can get to it? Yes. Is it the gun's fault? No, it's the fault of the parent who did not either a) educate his child in the safe handling of firearms or b) put the firearm in an inaccessible location. Seeing as how parents improperly educating their children about swimming, or monitoring their swimming child kills more kids per year than firearm ownership, i again see a point rendered moot.
The concept of "assault class weaponry" is amusing to me... what defines an "assault weapon" anyway? In my mind, it's pretty clear... if the weapon can go full-auto, it's an assault weapon. But to the politicos, well... California's classification of "assault weapon" happens to include some target pistols, due to the fact that, for balance purposes, the magazine is inserted in front of the trigger.
Let me give some perspective on where i'm coming from. I grew up in a house (in a fairly urban area) where guns were common, and never something really "mysterious" to me. I've got DSA shipping me a SA58 carbine inside of a week (basically a cut-down FAL, if anyone's curious) with military optics and ten spare 20-round magazines. Does this go through armor? Well, the kind of stuff you find most police wearing, sure. Would i call it an "assault weapon?" I'm kinda picky... my term would be "battle rifle," but the mainstream media would call it an assault weapon, so go figure. Is it good for doing anything but killing people? Sure... 7.62x51mm is pretty good for most animals up to about 250 pounds, and i'll be able to do some target shooting with it, especially if i get a longer barrel somewhere down the road.
Why in the hell does he need THAT, you're asking? Well, it's simple. I *want* one. I like the handling, i like the weight, i like the round it fires, the capacity of the magazines, the fact that it gets close to 1.5 MOA accuracy despite having a barrel that's as short as legally allowed for a basic civilian purchase... and the reassurance, in my mind, that it's there if i ever need it.
Now, *I* don't feel crazy. Virtually anybody who knows me would call me pretty darn sane. And yet, to me, personal firearms ownership makes perfect sense. I've taken well thought-out precautions against accidents, I've got a safe that'll keep my rifle from getting stolen by all but the most determined of burglars (who'd either have to cut through an inch of steel wall, or figure out how to get a 700 pound safe up a flight of stairs), and I'm mentally stable enough that i'm not about to go postal with it. Given this, I feel it's my *right* to own what i want... and the fact that it's not politically correct seems like an awfully bad reason to restrict me from owning the thing that i want.
The example of "rednecks versus the oppressive military" has been given a bunch of times, and in my opinion, it basically comes down to this:
Could a ranger squad take down a guy in a house with his deer rifle? Sure. Would a ranger squad take down an American citizen, defending his own property, and then go on to do it over, and over, and over, without moral qualms, meanwhile maintaining popular support and not mobilizing a (armed, since they still have the right to bear arms) resistance movement against them? I think not. Or at least, i choose to think not... I'm hoping that by the time my government slides down that far, i'm either long dead, or i've got that 55 gallon drum buried in the backyard to deal with whatever comes.
There are 50 million handguns in the USA. That's enough for 1 out of every 5 people (not just adults, but *everyone*) to have one. An effort to ban them would result in two things: many legal owners would turn them in, and many other legal owners would become criminals by refusing to turn them in. Meanwhile, the people committing the crimes with the firearms (also known as "criminals" to most people) would continue about their merry business... Illegal Posession of a Firearm isn't that big of a charge to bring against somebody who robs banks for a living. England is actually decent proof of this... since the banning of handguns there, handgun *crime* has actually doubled. Why? Well, the criminals aren't following the "turn it in" laws anyway, and they're not worried about armed resistance, either. To me, living where i do, legal ownership of a firearm is a right that i want to keep. If you don't want to own one personally, that's fine by me... I encourage you to stick with whatever you're comfortable doing. But please, don't tell me that I somehow become a "danger" or a "bad person" because i own one.
I haven't exactly read this thread (I think I got in 5 words before hitting reply heh) so this isn't really a reply to anything said, but moreso just a statement of my opinion.
Three points:
1. I like shooting, I find it to be fun. But I do feel that other people's right to be safe outweighs my right to shoot clay piegons and targets.
2. I believe that if there were a <u>100%</u>, fullproof method of gun control, I would be in favor of it, as criminals wouldn't have guns.
3. But there simply is not a 100%, fullproof method to gun control. Its impossible as long as the gun itself is still in existance. Therefore, I believe that people should have a right to protect themselves from other people at all costs.
And a side note: I actually think guns can make society more civilized than if there were no guns. Think about it: Before there were guns the physically weak (me, probably most of you) were ruled by the physically strong (athletes, football players, Monse). Simple, primal, brutal force was what dictated right and wrong, good and bad, tolerable and intolerable. Guns even the playing field (as swords, arrows, and other weapons did somewhat before them) and allow people to be treated more fairly, like human beings.
Little have I read this thread but I have one guestion here: Would you kill a burglar to stop him taking your TV? Do you value money more than human life, even if its criminals life?
<!--QuoteBegin--*Dread*+Feb 16 2003, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (*Dread* @ Feb 16 2003, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Little have I read this thread but I have one guestion here: Would you kill a burglar to stop him taking your TV? Do you value money more than human life, even if its criminals life? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've said it again and again but here I go:
If someone is breaking into my home to take my stuff, and they have a deadly weapon, then they are not very trustworthy. How could I ever trust my safety with them?
I cannot, and therefore must neutralize this situation that is going in a very bad direction in respect of my well-being and the well-being of my family members.
Besides the fact that you NEVER know if someone has the potential to kill you or not, with or without reason.
Don't take the chance, take them out.
(By no means do I support shooting an unarmed person.)
Dezmodium, when someone breaks into your house with the intent to steal some of your stuff and get some cash for drugs, do you really think they want to risk the chance of Life in *daily* arse plundering Maximum security prison by killing you and your family?
Over the last few years, I think "self-defense" homocides are slowly starting to outnumber the real "homocides".
If someone broke into your house with the intent to kill you, do you think your gun would really help you then? Most crimes are acts of passion, stupidity and inebriatedness (drunkenness).
And not only that, but if we follow the laws that either you or Onuma posted, you point that gun at someone when their in your house, even if they have a butterknife you legally have to kill them. Do you want that sort of thing on your conscious, that you killed someone when they were just going to at best butter your bread or kill you realllllllllllllllllllllllllly slowly?
I'll be the first to admit, guns are fun, guns are cool, but the only real way to let there be private ownership is Gun Licenses. It'd be run by the local ATF, it'd be a 6 week 2 times a week, 2 hours each week thing where people would have to go if they wanted any level gun license. Change the law so anyone caught without a license is sentenced automatically to a (basewage *10%) fine plus 30 days in jail plus 168 hours community servce.
After you graduate the Gun Education program, you are licensed (class I) to own handguns, shotguns and rifles with clips of 15 or less bullets. To own (class II) weapons such as Semi-Auto assault rifles like AK's, M series, anything of that sort you'd have to go to the ATF and take a private course plus a 200$ fee. Class III stuff would be another 6w 2xw 2hrs/wk with a 500$ fee.
If they kill you as part of their crime, then that was their intention all along. If your so worried about them killing you in your sleep, why not just lock your bedroom door?
Don't forget that most crimes are crimes of passion. The angry wife who, in an arguement with her husband, takes his gun and shoots him. The same scenario reversed.
At least a sword requires you to be point-blank range. If they just had the intention of robbing you, I doubt they would have a gun anyways. A heavy bat or a leadpipe to break your windows.
Assuming I want to kill someone, and I have a gun, then I could just walk up behind him/her aim pull the trigger. Bang you're dead, there is no way you'd ever be able to defend against that.
How is that different from using a another weapon, like a club, knife, or some form of martial art, you ask? These things require me to get up close and personal, killing someone you're face to face with requires a lot more guts, and they all give you a much better chance of eacape as well. You cannot outrun a bullet however.
You may call it defence, but guns will not protect you, they may remove the threat if you shoot first (assuming you get the chance) but that is not the same thing. Guns only equalize in that they give everyone about the same potential to kill another human being, that has no defensive value.
I disagree with a lot the assumptions being made in the last few posts, i.e., that most thieves are going to limit themselves to property crimes as long as you don't escalate the situation. I think it is really naive to think that everyone is offered a "your money or your life" kind of a deal, or even to assume that is the norm. All too frequently no request is made, and simply both are taken.
Regarding the utility of using firearms for self-defense... Let's not paint a black-or-white picture of them being useful or useless. Obviously, there is no defense against a sniper with a hunting rifle and a scope. A trained assassin is not going to even present himself as a target. But that doesn't sound like most criminals. Most criminals are criminals out of a lack of opportunity- I'm not sure the exact figures, but I think I remember hearing that 70% of inmates in America are functionally illiterate. They can't hold decent jobs, or perhaps any job for that matter, so they steal.
Does this mean we should try to be more understanding of them, and take into account where they are coming from? Of course it does.
Does it mean that when it comes down to it, we should put our own lives at risk due to an ambiguous situation THEY initiated? I would say no. Shooting someone does not have to be personal. If shoot someone who refused to retreat, or lie prone, or otherwise failed to act to defuse a situation where I was questioning my mortality, that doesn't mean it was personal. It doesn't mean I wouldn't call an ambulance, or hope that they ended up in some kind of Hell.
All it means is that at that point in time, they presented me with a situation where it looked like there was a good chance I or someone else innocent would die, and as the initiator of that situation, THEY MUST BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESULTING CONFUSION. We're not mind readers. It is not my responsibility to give every driver on the road the the benefit of the doubt when they drive erratically, or fail to signal. I must prepare for the worst, and act, to ensure my saftey. In the event of an unfriendly encounter of any sort, people should expect that the people they prey upon can not give them the benefit of the doubt.
If someone breaks into my house with the intention of stealing my TV, and I find them in the dark, confront them, and they do not retreat or submit instantly, that's it. It doesn't mean I punished them for trying to take the TV, or that I assumed the role of judge for their afterlife. It simply means that I did what I had to do ensure my survival through the encounter, and they must bear the responsibility of all the possible outcomes of that encounter, because THEY INITIATED IT. One of my buddies used to like to drive like an idiot whenever he could. He'd sneer at cautious drivers who would "overreact" when he'd pass them on a blind corner, or cut them off abruptly, or fly by doing 60 in a 25. Like it was their fault if they got confused and turned the wrong way during his illegal maneuver. Like somehow they were supposed to know what he was up to, and know they were just supposed to stand still to make it easier for him pull off the "move" easier.
That's BS. When you start coloring outside the lines, no one can know what you're up to. You have to bear the responsibility for the unnecessary confusion.
The legal system in America recognizes this. I don't know the specifics, but in many cases you bear the responsibility for the RESULTS of your actions, not just the intent. One guy burned down a warehouse for insurance money, but four firefighters died confronting it. He got four murder counts. If you steal a car and flee on a high speed chase, and a cop wipes out trying to catch you- MURDER. One guy even got nailed for "murdering" his brother, because the two of them tried to rob a convenience store, during which time his brother got shot. Since the surviving brother participated in a felony that resulted in the death of his brother, he got charged with murder.
Is this a little wacky? Sometimes. But the general idea I think is that as a society, why should we really be so concerned with intentions, and not actions? Why do we care whether you thought you were a flying pink elephant, when in reality you drove a car through a crowd of people? When people do selfish things that get out of control, they are charged with the full result. I don't even think it has to be viewed as punishment so much as it is containment. Get them off the street, regardless of what they intended- if their initial motive was rotten, their true danger to society is what REALLY resulted, not just what they intended.
That said, you have a right to use deadly force to ensure your survival or other innocents, and it is not necessary to give the assailant the benefit of the doubt if it will hurt your own chances of survival. It isn't fair for you to shoulder that burden, to take that chance on THEIR behalf, when THEY started it.
Now, in terms of usefulness, firearms can be very useful in situations where a highly visible and predictable crime is about to take place. That doesn't mean that if you had two days warning it's open season. But if you have a restraining order against someone because they told you they "were gonna cut yer breasts off and stuff 'em down yer throat", and all of a sudden they kick down your front door at 3AM and start banging on your bedroom door with a butcher knife, you are not obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt. You can order them to leave, or try to escape yourself, but if that fails, drop them as they come through the last door.
Criminals are not necessarily efficient most of the time. Many of them are raving mad, or just stupid, and you would have a chance to defend yourself. There are situations where you can't retreat, or can't get help, or where you have advance warning in a general sense but can't get help (like a released felon, or a person with a restraining order.) The police will not hold such people, even if you know what they're going to try to do. If they show up and you're cornered, a firearm could definitely save your life, and probably save someone else the trouble of ALSO being their victim.
It's estimated that roughly 80% of violent crime is drug related. An even higher percentage of burglary is drug related. The situation you're most often seeing when somebody breaks into your house is that he needs a quick fix of whatever his drug of the week is. I mean, think about it... are you going to break into somebody's house and steal a television if you've got time to think things out and come up with a good money making plan? No. Are you going to break into someone's house and steal a television if you honestly don't care about money, but just want something you can pawn off for another rock? Much more likely, in my opinion.
Given this, i'm not about to assume that somebody breaking into my house is drug free. Are all of them druggies? No. But the odds are that the reason he's in my house involves either being high or in withdrawl.
Is this someone i trust to not kill me simply for surprising him holding my TV? Not in the slightest. So, i'm going to put myself in a situation where I can demand he *not* steal my property and hold him for the cops... and if he decides to try and kill me then, well... i'm in a much better position to defend myself than i would be if i had something like a bat.
The law may (or may not, honestly... i'd never heard of this before) say that if you point a gun at somebody, you have to kill him... but I can't think of a jury in the world that would convict you for holding someone at gunpoint *instead* of killing them. There's a law in Seattle that makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon over six feet long... some laws just aren't enforced, for a variety of reasons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Why up the killing capasity of the general population, the "protection" offered by guns is outshined by the problems caused by misuse.
Where I live you are not allowed to own guns without a permit, which you will have a very hard time getting without being in the police force, national guarde, or similar. Thus I don't own a gun, since the risk of being confronted by someone who does is virtually zero, I really dont need to.
I can think of very many people I'd never trust around guns, and very few i would.
First, I'm sorry for not responding so long, I was pretty busy otherwhere.
Second, am I the only one who feels that this discussion is getting more and more hypothetical?
What if someone entered my house without permission? What if it was a burglar? What if this burglar was armed? What if he was willing to use that weapon? What if I could defend myself with a gun?
Sure, all this <i>can</i> happen, just as you can be stuck down by lightning tomorrow, but you justify multiple million guns in private ownership with a chain of events that only a few dozen people are confronted with each year.
Reading through all this again, I think the most honest justification for gun ownership was given by Rob, DOOM, and Shrike: They just like shooting. But honestly, despite what <i>might</i> happen, the personal fun of each person stops where the security - and face it, there <i>are</i> more 'self-defense' homicides than 'burglar in your home' homicides - of other people begins.
Is defending yourself and your family important? Of course. But as thinking being, each and everyone of us has just as much an obligation towards their society. Harming fellow parts of that society and creating an environment in which the worst is expected of everyone just doesn't mean fulfilling it.
Nem, I did say i'd be willing to own a gun for the sheer purpose of putting holes in paper (i.e., target shooting)
And it is becoming hypothetical. But that's all life really is. One long hypothesis. And then you die.
But come on people, getting your house robbed is nothing really special. Ok, so they get to see what you own? Do you have any filthy mags hidden in your stuff?
If (as bubbleblower or shrike said) you have a restraining order and someone is tryin to kill you, do you think your gun will save you if they actually mean to do it? If your worried about someone threatening you, get a security system. Get one that's loud and linked to the phones. If something is loud it'll scare most people away. And perhaps the greatest reason why americans want to keep their guns so fervently:
<!--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-->Nemesis Zero: Is defending yourself and your family important? Of course. But as thinking being, each and everyone of us has just as much an obligation towards their society. Harming fellow parts of that society and creating an environment in which the worst is expected of everyone just doesn't mean fulfilling it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that my perception of the uses of a firearm for defensive purposes differs from yours, in terms of it's application. Society is, in a sense, one enormous extended family. I don't expect the worst of anybody... I honestly feel that most people have quite the opposite of "bad intentions" whenever they do something.
Part of my stance on this comes from my upbringing... i'm accustomed to living in a home where there are firearms, and totally comfortable with their presence since i'm familiar with their use, and they do provide (depending on your point of view) either security, or at least the illusion of it. I'm also aware of the dangers they pose, and comfortable with that... entering my *own home* late, if i hear somebody moving around, i make a point of yelling out "hi, guys!" long before they actually see me. Does this make me nervous, to know that when I awaken someone else in the house by coming in at 3 AM, they might come downstairs with a shotgun to investigate? Not in the least... because i know that it's a protective instinct, not a destructive instinct, and that protection is something i value.
Again... i believe that it is necessary to maintain the *right* of firearm ownership. I don't want everybody having guns... there are many whom i know are uncomfortable with them, and therefore don't belong being told to own one. But for people in *my* situation, where i'm familiar with the way the firearm functions, not a criminal, and certainly mentally competent enough to own one (at least, i hope i am <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ... some would doubt the mental competence of anyone who wants to own "something that destructive"), I don't see why my ability to own one should be restricted.
Cars are one of the most lethal devices in America. While they're not made "only to kill people," they are <i>the</i> greatest source of accidental death in the US. Driving drunk, in my mind, is just as dangerous (and just as irresponsible) as randomly firing into a crowd... there's no control over who ends up dead, and it's just as malicious. And yet, drunk driving (in my state, at least) results in a fine, and you losing your license. Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. All it does is perpetuate the demonization of the responsible firearm owner as yet another irresponsible ****, an accident waiting to happen.
<!--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-->Smokenova: If (as bubbleblower or shrike said) you have a restraining order and someone is tryin to kill you, do you think your gun will save you if they actually mean to do it? If your worried about someone threatening you, get a security system. Get one that's loud and linked to the phones. If something is loud it'll scare most people away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turning your own example back on you, do you think a loud, phone linked security system is going to save me if somebody actually means to kill me? More to the point, is it *more* or *less* likely to save me than having a firearm?
Average police response times in my neighborhood are about 15 minutes. Just keep that in mind.
To answer your question directly: yes, to an extent. I don't believe it's a 100% reliable method of saving my life from an intended murder, but it certainly ups my odds of survival.
<!--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-->Smokenova: And perhaps the greatest reason why americans want to keep their guns so fervently:
I am not speaking for anyone else in here when i say this... it only applies to me:
Yes, you're right.
"Fear" is not how i would put it. Depending on how joking i'm feeling when you ask me, i'd chalk it up to either "paranoia" (when i'm kidding) or "Be Prepared" (old boy scout motto coming back to haunt me there). It's not considered abnormal for us to stockpile water in case of an earthquake, or to have car insurance in case of an accident... why is it any different to have a firearm in case of a defensive situation?
I have the right to protect myself from harm. I have the right to protect my personal property from theft. I have the right to live in my own house without fear and without worry that i'm going to wander in some day, surprise somebody stealing my TV, and get knifed for my trouble. Is shooting somebody a solution to all of these problems? No... shooting someone running away with your TV is pretty indefensible. But *having* the gun, and choosing appropriate ways in which to employ it, *does* up your odds for survival in particular situations.
I'm not advocating total gun control (i.e no one gets guns), rather I'm advocating that everyone who owns a gun has to take a 30 hour course, pass a registration test and pay some cash for the license. It would deter just normal joe's who wanna buy guns to shoot people for robbery. And yearly/biyearly you have to re-register all your firearms. Every registered firearm would cost 25$ handgun, 35$ hunting rifle/shotgun and 100$ for weapons that have clips beyond 10-15 rnds. And you'd have to notify the police if you lose them.
Anyone caught with a firearm and is not registered/licensed, 6 months in medium security jail and a (basepay * 10%) fine.
I'm all for learning proper gun maintenance and knowledge of the firearms themselves. Of course I don't want people who know jack squat about firearms to own one...that would be an atrocity. I think everyone should be <i>allowed</i> to own them as their birthright, but if they screw up (ie felony or some other outstanding records) their privilege could be temporarily or permanently revoked, depending on the circumstance.
Firearms courses are great - they teach you how to operate, maneuver, maintain, and store your firearms. Everyone should take them, imo, even if they do not own or plan to own a firearm. It is general knowledge that should be known by everyone.
Smoke... you do realize that some gun owners would be dropping a couple thousand a year on your "reregistration" plan? That seems a little rediculous...
My FAL ran a little over 2 grand... the thought of paying out *another* 100 bucks a year *just for that gun* seems a little abusive.
i have a working spas12 hanging in my room... dunno why i have it, since i live in denmark... u can actually walk on the streets without fear of anything but very large trucks <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
All I am saying is that everyone has the right to protect themselves. I criminals carry guns, then I carry a gun. It could be that I would never have a chance against a murderer. I still have the right to protect myself. It could be that I will never have to be in the situation were I am forced to kill or be killed. I still have the right to protect myself. It could be that most likely the person to kill me would not be an enemy, but a friend or loved one in a crime of passion. Or that my murder would have been one of complete suprise. I still have the right to protect myself and noone will ever take that away from me unless I let them.
I still feel the bottom line is education. Like I mentioned in my previous posts the stats on accedental death or injury among people in the united states that use firearms in their daily jobs (Police, National Guard, ATF, CIA) is low or non-existant mainly because said people are extremely educated about weapons their uses, and the consequences of their uses.
The bottom line is personal responsibility, and the subsequent point is personal freedom. Cars are considdered deadly weapons, and there are countless deaths associated with cars and accidents, yet I dont see anyone lobbying for a ban on cars.
Comments
As an American, one thing seems clear to me: there is a cognitive disconnect between rural and urban areas. "Reasonable" people in the city are quick to point out the danger of hitting somebody else, or how you should leave it to the police. I'm sypathetic to a lot of these arguments if you live in a city, although I think certain groups of people definitely should consider a concealed handgun. Most people probably won't benefit from carrying a weapon, and a rifle in a city seems unnecessary and dangerous.
On the other hand, if you live in the middle of Montana, most of these issues are downright ridiculous if they are applied to you. Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places in the US that don't even have phones or cell service, much less a 3 minute police response. My folks had a cabin in a place where if you got hurt, it was going to take a loooong time to get help... someone was going to have travel to a phone, and then a helicopter would be sent. We're talking hours here. In these places, effectively, there is no law. (There also isn't a whole lot of crime, due to the absence of people.) But when problems arise of any nature, you're on your own. I've personally run into a bears a couple of times where, had they threatened me, a firearm would have been useful. In my case they left me alone, but that's in Washington state where bears are smaller and less aggressive. Cougars are plenty aggressive but much more rare. I think the Canadians are nuts for having a universal ban on handguns, with so much open territory with some very formidible wildlife. I think they let you carry a rifle, but man, what a pain considering you'll probably only need that big heavy object once or twice in your life.
It isn't fair to require people in rural areas to disarm, or even limit them to rifles. Why should a backpacker or an old lady chopping wood have to pack around a huge hunting rifle, when all that is needed is a reliable large caliber revolver?
There are even areas to consider where not only is there no law, but a HIGH probability of crime. This applies especially to ocean-going vessels. Head out into international waters, and I'd probably feel naked even with an assault rifle. I'd probably be looking to pick up some kind of a deck gun if I could.
Maybe we need to focus less on a one-size-fits all approach. There are a lot of people in the world with a lot of different lifestyles and situations. Inner-city Chicago is about as different from a small mountain community as the surface of Mars.
There's no need to get all caps lock, is there? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, didnt notice. Wasnt trying to get all huffy puffy.
any how
I really cant see what would be higher than preserving oneself and ones family. please elaborate
I'd like to note that there are ways of keeping 'rural' dangers under control in a 'gunless' environment - here in Germany for example, there is a whole profession of 'rangers' which have the sole purpose of keeping possibly agressive animals away from humans.
The system works well even in areas with a high density of carnivorous animals like wolves and bears.
[edit]Sorry Dez, but where I am, it's already too late. Tomorrow, k?[/edit]
Weapons in general were first used to help with hunting by primitive man. As with everything else in this world there is a positive, and negative aspect. You say guns are designed to hurt people, well there are plenty of olympic gold medalist ski-shoot-ski shooters who'd disagree with you.
Nuclear powers was also supposed to be used for good, yet we dropped 2 bombs as you may know, and caused a surge in cancer in the southwestern united states.
The argument that "guns are bad, because they were made to kill" is not a valid one, becuase it still takes a person (one who is ultimatley responsible for his or her own actions) to operate the trigger.
Also, anyone who cites "Bowling for Columbine" and Michael Moore as a legitamate documentary needs to get a clue. I don't feel like elaborating here, but read up: <a href='http://www.moorewatch.com' target='_blank'>Moorewathc</a>
Broad issues like this can't be simplified into an equation like that. There are way too many variables, and no ability to gather enough accurate data.
Some countries have high firearm ownership, and low crime, some score high in both.
Weapons aside, nothing breeds crime like poverty and lack of opportunity. When you take a large group of people and make it so they have nothing to lose, the fun begins. Available weapons and laws are just details. A yuppie suburb with 99% well-off tech workers, five angry youths, and a normal police force is going to have low crime whether the techies have firearms or not. Its hard to say if an elephant whistle scares them away if there's no elephants on your continent. On the other hand, if you have 200,000 people living in two square miles of garbage, with no food, running water, medical care, or jobs, and tempers are flaring and death is coming one way or the other, you're going to have people slitting each other's throats even if you outlaw pillow fighting.
I think there needs to be more effective localized law-making applicable to the circumstances of an area, rather than broad-sweeping legislation across city and praire alike. In theory this is how it is supposed to happen, but when it doesn't, people try to ram things through at higher levels, which messes things up for people in other areas.
In terms of what you can carry around fully-assembled, people in cities perhaps should be limited to weapons that are shorter in range and penetration power. SWAT teams already do this somewhat- they'll use 9mm MP5s for a house raid instead of an AR15, so they don't shoot through five houses in one burst.
Rural areas need a little more punch because of lack of assistance, and the greater probability of having to drop a large animal. A grizzly bear is not going to go down from a 9mm, most likely. On the other hand, a person claiming to need a 30 '06 in downtown Manhattan is probably doing something more than self-defense.
As I said, if you can't live without the guns at least teach people how not use them. After all you don't let people drive around without a license because they could hurt someone. How can you let them have a firearm without ever teaching them the danger it poses.
I agree completely.
I think what has been going on in America is a tug-of-war between incompatible philosophies. On one side you have people that think if everyone was armed all the time, all problems would be fixed. These people even use their sidearms to open their cans of soda.
On the other side you have people that think we live in a magical fairy world where if children are sheltered from specific information about weapons, they'll never have an evil thought in their lives. These are probably the same people that think that if they never tell their kids about sex they'll never want to do it. (Nah, that's a just a low blow, and not true.)
At any rate, the result is that you have an existing set of laws where it is legal to own firearms, but completely taboo to talk about them! Our news stations will hardly even tell you what kind of weapon was used- they'll just put up a big graphic of the word "gun" in dripping blood red letters. Any attempt to suggest a way to responsibly own and care for firearms is taken as an endorsement to walk around shooting at anything that moves. So we end up with a bunch of kids who live in houses where these are kept, but barely know which end is which, and don't really comprehend the destructive power. Nor does anyone let them try it out in a safe environment to get it out of their system. I think most people who have shot a gun can see it for what it is- a mechanical tool that doesn't add or detract from your sexual attractiveness. But for kids who aren't allowed to ever get close to them, I think they build it up as if they'd have an orgasm just by touching one!
A lot of the adults in this country are being immature on both sides of the issue, instead of calming down and honestly discussing the pros and cons. There's no free ride either way.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Feb 12 2003, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Feb 12 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, anyone who cites "Bowling for Columbine" and Michael Moore as a legitamate documentary needs to get a clue. I don't feel like elaborating here, but read up: <a href='http://www.moorewatch.com' target='_blank'>Moorewatch</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't seen "Bowling for Columbine" or read anything of Michael Moore.
All I can say is that after visiting your link, I'm pretty sure that he's much more credible than this site.
It's not a good choice to post flame-mails against you if you want to be taken serious.
I honestly think this site is utterly crap.
My father's family kept a revolver, probably a .44. It wasn't for fun shooting but rather to kill rattlesnakes and scare off wolves. They lived on a ranch in the middle of nowhere^98.
I'm applying to what I say to an urban area, roughly 20 persons/per square mile or greater.
The people in rural area's should be allowed to have rifles, low ammo capacity semi-auto's or bolt-actions. They could be bolt-action .50 BMG for all I care, because most likely they'll use them for hunting and getting rid of animals.
Gun control laws should be customized to each state/county as neccesary, as Wyoming has like a real small population, same for vermont, but New York is really populated in the center and bottom.
I don't see a need why people should be allowed to own *even for display* an Ak47, an mp5 or an m16.
Of course, I do believe federal bullet control is a reasonable alternative. The only place you'd be allowed to have ammo the Shooting Range (urban setting only). Once you reach city limits, ammo should flow like wine, but the second you enter an urban area you have to leave it behind or risk major (10,000$ +) fines and time in prison (medium security).
Class III body armor is the low end of "combat" armor, as it's basically at the point where you stop attempting to be concealable in favor of stopping bullets. According to the NIJ, it's rated to stop 6 rounds of .308 ammunition (the famous "PSG-1 sniper rifle bullet" you spoke of, Onuma) before it becomes ineffective... which implies more protection than you gave it credit for (since it doesn't require a huge concrete slab), and a hell of a lot more protection than GreyPaws claimed ("designed to stop shrapnel" <--- you're referring to a "flak vest", not body armor).
NO first-world military force pursues a doctrine with an EXPECTED fatality rate of 80 percent. That said, building entry is a fairly common part of urban combat... i hate to refer to movies, but Black Hawk Down has a couple of examples of building combat in it. Entering a heavily fortified, booby-trapped building is one thing... smashing in the door to a random building with a couple of shooters in it is another story entirely. A note: offensive hand grenades are quite handy in this situation, since you're much less likely to expose yourself to direct fire and yet still able to kill the guy in the next room.
Class IV armor is rated to stop a single round of .30-06 *armor piercing* ammunition, just as a reference point... this usually involves plates which fragment upon being struck, which nominally drops the armor to about Class III effectiveness after that first hit.
More on topic, there's a neglected part of American legal code that will probably be appalling to many people: it is legal, after doing some paperwork and paying 200 dollars to the government in addition to the purchasing cost of the weapon, to own a Class III weapon. This includes weapons capable of burst and autofire, suppressor-("silencer")equipped weapons, "destructive devices" (cut down shotguns, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowers, and the like), and pretty much any other politically incorrect device that you want. What are the restrictions? You have to be a non-felon, and a legal US resident who passes a background check... and you've got to be willing to do the paperwork and fork over the extra 200 bucks.
Seems ridiculous, no? Well... since 1935, when the laws putting these restrictions into effect were created, there have been a grand total of *two* felonies committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, making the legal ownership of these weapons less likely to kill somebody than some of the chemicals in OC/pepper spray.
It seems obvious to me, at least, that the problem here is the PEOPLE, and not the guns. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people..." cliche, but true. With the NFA owners (the class III people i was talking about), you have a bunch of *responsible* gun owners exercising their civil rights, having a lot of fun, and hurting nobody.
What it essentially comes down to is the person on the other end of the gun.
Do people die because of accidental shootings? Yes. The gun isn't what accidentally shot somebody... the person holding it was. Driving drunk isn't even a felony in the United States, despite the fact that it kills more people accidentally per year than firearms; the arguement against accidental death is therefore rendered kinda moot.
Do kids die because their parents leave a loaded gun in a place the kid can get to it? Yes. Is it the gun's fault? No, it's the fault of the parent who did not either a) educate his child in the safe handling of firearms or b) put the firearm in an inaccessible location. Seeing as how parents improperly educating their children about swimming, or monitoring their swimming child kills more kids per year than firearm ownership, i again see a point rendered moot.
The concept of "assault class weaponry" is amusing to me... what defines an "assault weapon" anyway? In my mind, it's pretty clear... if the weapon can go full-auto, it's an assault weapon. But to the politicos, well... California's classification of "assault weapon" happens to include some target pistols, due to the fact that, for balance purposes, the magazine is inserted in front of the trigger.
Let me give some perspective on where i'm coming from. I grew up in a house (in a fairly urban area) where guns were common, and never something really "mysterious" to me. I've got DSA shipping me a SA58 carbine inside of a week (basically a cut-down FAL, if anyone's curious) with military optics and ten spare 20-round magazines. Does this go through armor? Well, the kind of stuff you find most police wearing, sure. Would i call it an "assault weapon?" I'm kinda picky... my term would be "battle rifle," but the mainstream media would call it an assault weapon, so go figure. Is it good for doing anything but killing people? Sure... 7.62x51mm is pretty good for most animals up to about 250 pounds, and i'll be able to do some target shooting with it, especially if i get a longer barrel somewhere down the road.
Why in the hell does he need THAT, you're asking? Well, it's simple. I *want* one. I like the handling, i like the weight, i like the round it fires, the capacity of the magazines, the fact that it gets close to 1.5 MOA accuracy despite having a barrel that's as short as legally allowed for a basic civilian purchase... and the reassurance, in my mind, that it's there if i ever need it.
Now, *I* don't feel crazy. Virtually anybody who knows me would call me pretty darn sane. And yet, to me, personal firearms ownership makes perfect sense. I've taken well thought-out precautions against accidents, I've got a safe that'll keep my rifle from getting stolen by all but the most determined of burglars (who'd either have to cut through an inch of steel wall, or figure out how to get a 700 pound safe up a flight of stairs), and I'm mentally stable enough that i'm not about to go postal with it. Given this, I feel it's my *right* to own what i want... and the fact that it's not politically correct seems like an awfully bad reason to restrict me from owning the thing that i want.
The example of "rednecks versus the oppressive military" has been given a bunch of times, and in my opinion, it basically comes down to this:
Could a ranger squad take down a guy in a house with his deer rifle? Sure.
Would a ranger squad take down an American citizen, defending his own property, and then go on to do it over, and over, and over, without moral qualms, meanwhile maintaining popular support and not mobilizing a (armed, since they still have the right to bear arms) resistance movement against them? I think not. Or at least, i choose to think not... I'm hoping that by the time my government slides down that far, i'm either long dead, or i've got that 55 gallon drum buried in the backyard to deal with whatever comes.
There are 50 million handguns in the USA. That's enough for 1 out of every 5 people (not just adults, but *everyone*) to have one. An effort to ban them would result in two things: many legal owners would turn them in, and many other legal owners would become criminals by refusing to turn them in. Meanwhile, the people committing the crimes with the firearms (also known as "criminals" to most people) would continue about their merry business... Illegal Posession of a Firearm isn't that big of a charge to bring against somebody who robs banks for a living. England is actually decent proof of this... since the banning of handguns there, handgun *crime* has actually doubled. Why? Well, the criminals aren't following the "turn it in" laws anyway, and they're not worried about armed resistance, either. To me, living where i do, legal ownership of a firearm is a right that i want to keep. If you don't want to own one personally, that's fine by me... I encourage you to stick with whatever you're comfortable doing. But please, don't tell me that I somehow become a "danger" or a "bad person" because i own one.
Three points:
1. I like shooting, I find it to be fun. But I do feel that other people's right to be safe outweighs my right to shoot clay piegons and targets.
2. I believe that if there were a <u>100%</u>, fullproof method of gun control, I would be in favor of it, as criminals wouldn't have guns.
3. But there simply is not a 100%, fullproof method to gun control. Its impossible as long as the gun itself is still in existance. Therefore, I believe that people should have a right to protect themselves from other people at all costs.
And a side note: I actually think guns can make society more civilized than if there were no guns. Think about it: Before there were guns the physically weak (me, probably most of you) were ruled by the physically strong (athletes, football players, Monse). Simple, primal, brutal force was what dictated right and wrong, good and bad, tolerable and intolerable. Guns even the playing field (as swords, arrows, and other weapons did somewhat before them) and allow people to be treated more fairly, like human beings.
I've said it again and again but here I go:
If someone is breaking into my home to take my stuff, and they have a deadly weapon, then they are not very trustworthy. How could I ever trust my safety with them?
I cannot, and therefore must neutralize this situation that is going in a very bad direction in respect of my well-being and the well-being of my family members.
Besides the fact that you NEVER know if someone has the potential to kill you or not, with or without reason.
Don't take the chance, take them out.
(By no means do I support shooting an unarmed person.)
Over the last few years, I think "self-defense" homocides are slowly starting to outnumber the real "homocides".
If someone broke into your house with the intent to kill you, do you think your gun would really help you then? Most crimes are acts of passion, stupidity and inebriatedness (drunkenness).
And not only that, but if we follow the laws that either you or Onuma posted, you point that gun at someone when their in your house, even if they have a butterknife you legally have to kill them. Do you want that sort of thing on your conscious, that you killed someone when they were just going to at best butter your bread or kill you realllllllllllllllllllllllllly slowly?
I'll be the first to admit, guns are fun, guns are cool, but the only real way to let there be private ownership is Gun Licenses. It'd be run by the local ATF, it'd be a 6 week 2 times a week, 2 hours each week thing where people would have to go if they wanted any level gun license. Change the law so anyone caught without a license is sentenced automatically to a (basewage *10%) fine plus 30 days in jail plus 168 hours community servce.
After you graduate the Gun Education program, you are licensed (class I) to own handguns, shotguns and rifles with clips of 15 or less bullets. To own (class II) weapons such as Semi-Auto assault rifles like AK's, M series, anything of that sort you'd have to go to the ATF and take a private course plus a 200$ fee. Class III stuff would be another 6w 2xw 2hrs/wk with a 500$ fee.
better question.
Do criminals sometimes break into peoples house and kill them as part of their crime? Yes sometimes.
The fact of the matter is that you do not know which type of criminal this is.
Don't forget that most crimes are crimes of passion. The angry wife who, in an arguement with her husband, takes his gun and shoots him. The same scenario reversed.
At least a sword requires you to be point-blank range. If they just had the intention of robbing you, I doubt they would have a gun anyways. A heavy bat or a leadpipe to break your windows.
How is that different from using a another weapon, like a club, knife, or some form of martial art, you ask? These things require me to get up close and personal, killing someone you're face to face with requires a lot more guts, and they all give you a much better chance of eacape as well. You cannot outrun a bullet however.
You may call it defence, but guns will not protect you, they may remove the threat if you shoot first (assuming you get the chance) but that is not the same thing. Guns only equalize in that they give everyone about the same potential to kill another human being, that has no defensive value.
Regarding the utility of using firearms for self-defense... Let's not paint a black-or-white picture of them being useful or useless. Obviously, there is no defense against a sniper with a hunting rifle and a scope. A trained assassin is not going to even present himself as a target. But that doesn't sound like most criminals. Most criminals are criminals out of a lack of opportunity- I'm not sure the exact figures, but I think I remember hearing that 70% of inmates in America are functionally illiterate. They can't hold decent jobs, or perhaps any job for that matter, so they steal.
Does this mean we should try to be more understanding of them, and take into account where they are coming from? Of course it does.
Does it mean that when it comes down to it, we should put our own lives at risk due to an ambiguous situation THEY initiated? I would say no. Shooting someone does not have to be personal. If shoot someone who refused to retreat, or lie prone, or otherwise failed to act to defuse a situation where I was questioning my mortality, that doesn't mean it was personal. It doesn't mean I wouldn't call an ambulance, or hope that they ended up in some kind of Hell.
All it means is that at that point in time, they presented me with a situation where it looked like there was a good chance I or someone else innocent would die, and as the initiator of that situation, THEY MUST BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RESULTING CONFUSION. We're not mind readers. It is not my responsibility to give every driver on the road the the benefit of the doubt when they drive erratically, or fail to signal. I must prepare for the worst, and act, to ensure my saftey. In the event of an unfriendly encounter of any sort, people should expect that the people they prey upon can not give them the benefit of the doubt.
If someone breaks into my house with the intention of stealing my TV, and I find them in the dark, confront them, and they do not retreat or submit instantly, that's it. It doesn't mean I punished them for trying to take the TV, or that I assumed the role of judge for their afterlife. It simply means that I did what I had to do ensure my survival through the encounter, and they must bear the responsibility of all the possible outcomes of that encounter, because THEY INITIATED IT. One of my buddies used to like to drive like an idiot whenever he could. He'd sneer at cautious drivers who would "overreact" when he'd pass them on a blind corner, or cut them off abruptly, or fly by doing 60 in a 25. Like it was their fault if they got confused and turned the wrong way during his illegal maneuver. Like somehow they were supposed to know what he was up to, and know they were just supposed to stand still to make it easier for him pull off the "move" easier.
That's BS. When you start coloring outside the lines, no one can know what you're up to. You have to bear the responsibility for the unnecessary confusion.
The legal system in America recognizes this. I don't know the specifics, but in many cases you bear the responsibility for the RESULTS of your actions, not just the intent. One guy burned down a warehouse for insurance money, but four firefighters died confronting it. He got four murder counts. If you steal a car and flee on a high speed chase, and a cop wipes out trying to catch you- MURDER. One guy even got nailed for "murdering" his brother, because the two of them tried to rob a convenience store, during which time his brother got shot. Since the surviving brother participated in a felony that resulted in the death of his brother, he got charged with murder.
Is this a little wacky? Sometimes. But the general idea I think is that as a society, why should we really be so concerned with intentions, and not actions? Why do we care whether you thought you were a flying pink elephant, when in reality you drove a car through a crowd of people? When people do selfish things that get out of control, they are charged with the full result. I don't even think it has to be viewed as punishment so much as it is containment. Get them off the street, regardless of what they intended- if their initial motive was rotten, their true danger to society is what REALLY resulted, not just what they intended.
That said, you have a right to use deadly force to ensure your survival or other innocents, and it is not necessary to give the assailant the benefit of the doubt if it will hurt your own chances of survival. It isn't fair for you to shoulder that burden, to take that chance on THEIR behalf, when THEY started it.
Now, in terms of usefulness, firearms can be very useful in situations where a highly visible and predictable crime is about to take place. That doesn't mean that if you had two days warning it's open season. But if you have a restraining order against someone because they told you they "were gonna cut yer breasts off and stuff 'em down yer throat", and all of a sudden they kick down your front door at 3AM and start banging on your bedroom door with a butcher knife, you are not obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt. You can order them to leave, or try to escape yourself, but if that fails, drop them as they come through the last door.
Criminals are not necessarily efficient most of the time. Many of them are raving mad, or just stupid, and you would have a chance to defend yourself. There are situations where you can't retreat, or can't get help, or where you have advance warning in a general sense but can't get help (like a released felon, or a person with a restraining order.) The police will not hold such people, even if you know what they're going to try to do. If they show up and you're cornered, a firearm could definitely save your life, and probably save someone else the trouble of ALSO being their victim.
Given this, i'm not about to assume that somebody breaking into my house is drug free. Are all of them druggies? No. But the odds are that the reason he's in my house involves either being high or in withdrawl.
Is this someone i trust to not kill me simply for surprising him holding my TV? Not in the slightest. So, i'm going to put myself in a situation where I can demand he *not* steal my property and hold him for the cops... and if he decides to try and kill me then, well... i'm in a much better position to defend myself than i would be if i had something like a bat.
The law may (or may not, honestly... i'd never heard of this before) say that if you point a gun at somebody, you have to kill him... but I can't think of a jury in the world that would convict you for holding someone at gunpoint *instead* of killing them. There's a law in Seattle that makes it illegal to carry a concealed weapon over six feet long... some laws just aren't enforced, for a variety of reasons <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Where I live you are not allowed to own guns without a permit, which you will have a very hard time getting without being in the police force, national guarde, or similar. Thus I don't own a gun, since the risk of being confronted by someone who does is virtually zero, I really dont need to.
I can think of very many people I'd never trust around guns, and very few i would.
Second, am I the only one who feels that this discussion is getting more and more hypothetical?
What if someone entered my house without permission? What if it was a burglar? What if this burglar was armed? What if he was willing to use that weapon? What if I could defend myself with a gun?
Sure, all this <i>can</i> happen, just as you can be stuck down by lightning tomorrow, but you justify multiple million guns in private ownership with a chain of events that only a few dozen people are confronted with each year.
Reading through all this again, I think the most honest justification for gun ownership was given by Rob, DOOM, and Shrike: They just like shooting.
But honestly, despite what <i>might</i> happen, the personal fun of each person stops where the security - and face it, there <i>are</i> more 'self-defense' homicides than 'burglar in your home' homicides - of other people begins.
Is defending yourself and your family important? Of course.
But as thinking being, each and everyone of us has just as much an obligation towards their society. Harming fellow parts of that society and creating an environment in which the worst is expected of everyone just doesn't mean fulfilling it.
And it is becoming hypothetical. But that's all life really is. One long hypothesis. And then you die.
But come on people, getting your house robbed is nothing really special. Ok, so they get to see what you own? Do you have any filthy mags hidden in your stuff?
If (as bubbleblower or shrike said) you have a restraining order and someone is tryin to kill you, do you think your gun will save you if they actually mean to do it? If your worried about someone threatening you, get a security system. Get one that's loud and linked to the phones. If something is loud it'll scare most people away. And perhaps the greatest reason why americans want to keep their guns so fervently:
Fear.
Is defending yourself and your family important? Of course.
But as thinking being, each and everyone of us has just as much an obligation towards their society. Harming fellow parts of that society and creating an environment in which the worst is expected of everyone just doesn't mean fulfilling it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that my perception of the uses of a firearm for defensive purposes differs from yours, in terms of it's application. Society is, in a sense, one enormous extended family. I don't expect the worst of anybody... I honestly feel that most people have quite the opposite of "bad intentions" whenever they do something.
Part of my stance on this comes from my upbringing... i'm accustomed to living in a home where there are firearms, and totally comfortable with their presence since i'm familiar with their use, and they do provide (depending on your point of view) either security, or at least the illusion of it. I'm also aware of the dangers they pose, and comfortable with that... entering my *own home* late, if i hear somebody moving around, i make a point of yelling out "hi, guys!" long before they actually see me. Does this make me nervous, to know that when I awaken someone else in the house by coming in at 3 AM, they might come downstairs with a shotgun to investigate? Not in the least... because i know that it's a protective instinct, not a destructive instinct, and that protection is something i value.
Again... i believe that it is necessary to maintain the *right* of firearm ownership. I don't want everybody having guns... there are many whom i know are uncomfortable with them, and therefore don't belong being told to own one. But for people in *my* situation, where i'm familiar with the way the firearm functions, not a criminal, and certainly mentally competent enough to own one (at least, i hope i am <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ... some would doubt the mental competence of anyone who wants to own "something that destructive"), I don't see why my ability to own one should be restricted.
Cars are one of the most lethal devices in America. While they're not made "only to kill people," they are <i>the</i> greatest source of accidental death in the US. Driving drunk, in my mind, is just as dangerous (and just as irresponsible) as randomly firing into a crowd... there's no control over who ends up dead, and it's just as malicious. And yet, drunk driving (in my state, at least) results in a fine, and you losing your license. Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. All it does is perpetuate the demonization of the responsible firearm owner as yet another irresponsible ****, an accident waiting to happen.
<!--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-->Smokenova:
If (as bubbleblower or shrike said) you have a restraining order and someone is tryin to kill you, do you think your gun will save you if they actually mean to do it? If your worried about someone threatening you, get a security system. Get one that's loud and linked to the phones. If something is loud it'll scare most people away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Turning your own example back on you, do you think a loud, phone linked security system is going to save me if somebody actually means to kill me? More to the point, is it *more* or *less* likely to save me than having a firearm?
Average police response times in my neighborhood are about 15 minutes. Just keep that in mind.
To answer your question directly: yes, to an extent. I don't believe it's a 100% reliable method of saving my life from an intended murder, but it certainly ups my odds of survival.
<!--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-->Smokenova:
And perhaps the greatest reason why americans want to keep their guns so fervently:
Fear.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not speaking for anyone else in here when i say this... it only applies to me:
Yes, you're right.
"Fear" is not how i would put it. Depending on how joking i'm feeling when you ask me, i'd chalk it up to either "paranoia" (when i'm kidding) or "Be Prepared" (old boy scout motto coming back to haunt me there). It's not considered abnormal for us to stockpile water in case of an earthquake, or to have car insurance in case of an accident... why is it any different to have a firearm in case of a defensive situation?
I have the right to protect myself from harm. I have the right to protect my personal property from theft. I have the right to live in my own house without fear and without worry that i'm going to wander in some day, surprise somebody stealing my TV, and get knifed for my trouble. Is shooting somebody a solution to all of these problems? No... shooting someone running away with your TV is pretty indefensible. But *having* the gun, and choosing appropriate ways in which to employ it, *does* up your odds for survival in particular situations.
Anyone caught with a firearm and is not registered/licensed, 6 months in medium security jail and a (basepay * 10%) fine.
Firearms courses are great - they teach you how to operate, maneuver, maintain, and store your firearms. Everyone should take them, imo, even if they do not own or plan to own a firearm. It is general knowledge that should be known by everyone.
My FAL ran a little over 2 grand... the thought of paying out *another* 100 bucks a year *just for that gun* seems a little abusive.
The bottom line is personal responsibility, and the subsequent point is personal freedom. Cars are considdered deadly weapons, and there are countless deaths associated with cars and accidents, yet I dont see anyone lobbying for a ban on cars.