If some criminal is trying to violate my rights, I'd say that a gun would solve that problem quite nicely. By the way; what is your avatar supposed to be?
So if a person threatens your children you would call the police and sit by, watching him kill your children, all in the name of "I'm not a self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner?" How VERY noble of you. I'm very glad you're not my dad. When you threaten me, I become my own judge, my own jury, and if required, the executioner. You lay a hand on my family and you would be DEAD. No ifs. DEAD. YOU seem to be more interested in not offending the poor soul that is murdering your kids. Sick. Over here, if anyone starts raping, or murdering, or threatening other people, they become criminals. It really isn't rocket science and we don't set up commissions to study the definitions. Correct, not everyone in the world care about politics. It is just that liberals would sit by idly watching his wife get raped while the owner of a gun would stand up and defend her. Woot, another one. Could you for a minute think? Point. Click. Bullet in body. Dead.
I think you're paranoid. Some questions: * Do you personally know anybody who has been raped or killed? My aunt was killed in her home. My mother was raped so was my uncle, and grandmother. * Do you personally know anybody who has avoided being raped or killed because they had a gun? No they all were disarmed. * Do you live in a particularly dangerous area? Yes ¼ girls is raped at my university * What makes you think that a gun would be more help than, say, a little self-defence training in hand-to-hand combat? Guns are scarier to a criminal then some body kicking them in the crotch. * Are you aware that most murders are committed by people known personally to the victim? Yep my family thinks her husband hired somebody to kill my aunt. * Why do you think there are so many gun murders in the US? Could it possibly have something to do with the ready availability of guns? I don’t care if there are gun murders I care about <B>murders<B> I believe people are by natural amoral and violent. By social institution people act moral. I don’t care about gun murder I care about murder rates. Still say a nation. I will give you some citation tommarow the computer lab is closing shortly. How does government do that? They pass laws and tax people. Both are oppression I don’t have the freedom to kill somebody. They passed a law to stop that. Police enforce these laws. Army kills people which takes away there life. They take away other peoples freedom so we can live in peace. They also are paid by taxes. Social benefits are all paid by taxes. This takes away the freedom to spend my money how I want hence oppression. That’s really close minded. Im also not anti-goverment I just belive in the fore-fothers of the United States Philosophy.
Jerrek, good job on this thread, its getting huge! putting aside the angry tirades (tho they are often quite entertaining) that pop up once in a while there's a lot of interesting stuff in here - on both sides of the topic. buff by the way conservatism is also a mental disorder along with almost every other "ism". DOWN WITH ISM'S!
I think a waiting period of a couple of days is reasonable, as I can't think of any legal activity that would lead someone to need a gun on the same day, and it keeps people from buying a gun on the spur of the moment in response to a passionate arguement. Mandatory trigger locks also seem harmless. I think thats pretty much where gun control should stop. Gun control is a difficult issue for me because fundementally I believe people should have the right to own guns for whatever reason, but I have serious problems with the mentality of the average person who owns guns for "self defense": the thing is you probably wouldn't wait for them to start doing any of those things, you'd probably shoot them as soon as they broke into your house, and would likely be killing an unarmed person who was trying to steal your tv. The fact that someone doesn't have a gun doesn't mean that they wouldn't defend their family. A knife or a bat would do the trick just fine, unless the intruder had a gun, in which case your having a gun might not help you either.
At this point, I'd like to say that I sympathise with those of you have have been close to victims of violence. It is terrible that these things happen, and I agree that the perpetrators should be subject to the full sanction of the law. However, my comments here are not about that, directly. What I am questioning here is whether a gun would have helped any of these people, or whether they, in general make situations more controlled or lead to better outcomes when somebody is under threat. I do not beleive they do, and I also believe that both statistical and anecdotal evidence supports this view. Finally, I believe in law and order. I have a degree in law, and I think that laws exist for a reason. Vigilante "justice" causes far more problems than it solves. We have legal institutions for a good reason. I urge you to consider why these things exist at all. <b>Galt</b>: <i>If some criminal is trying to violate my rights, I'd say that a gun would solve that problem quite nicely.</i> Really? Where do you draw the line? Which types of rights violations would justify you killing somebody, I wonder. Would you settle a dispute with your next-door neighbour by pulling a gun on him? I think you would. How is that going to turn out well? The fact is, this kind of behaviour only leads to an escalation of violence. If you approve of violence for yourself, how can you hope to condemn the violence of others without being labelled a hypocrite? <i>By the way; what is your avatar supposed to be?</i> It's a spinning sphere. <b>Jerrek</b>: <i>So if a person threatens your children you would call the police and sit by, watching him kill your children, all in the name of "I'm not a self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner?" How VERY noble of you. I'm very glad you're not my dad.</i> Please try to keep up. What I would do in such a situation would very much depend on the circumstances. However, I would not buy a gun on the off-chance that one day my family might be threatened by a faceless stranger. That is very unlikely ever to happen, despite what the fear-mongers want you to think. <i>When you threaten me, I become my own judge, my own jury, and if required, the executioner. You lay a hand on my family and you would be DEAD. No ifs. DEAD.</i> What if I have a mental problem and am not totally in control of myself? Do I deserve to die? What if there is an alternative way to disable me without killing me? It doesn't make any difference to you, does it? You're quite happy to go ahead and shoot me. You're just trigger-happy. <i>YOU seem to be more interested in not offending the poor soul that is murdering your kids. Sick.</i> I don't know where you got that idea from. I certainly didn't say anything of the sort. You're attacking a straw man. <i>Over here, if anyone starts raping, or murdering, or threatening other people, they become criminals. It really isn't rocket science and we don't set up commissions to study the definitions.</i> You're wrong, there. Criminology is a huge multi-disciplinary field of study. <i>Correct, not everyone in the world care about politics. It is just that liberals would sit by idly watching his wife get raped while the owner of a gun would stand up and defend her.</i> Listen to yourself for a minute. Do you seriously believe what you're saying? <b>Thaug</b>: I am sorry to hear about your relatives. In the context of the current discussion this part is perhaps the most important: <i>* Do you personally know anybody who has avoided being raped or killed because they had a gun? <b>No they all were disarmed.</b></i> This is something for the gun advocates to think about. <i>¼ girls is raped at my university</i> It is not entirely relevant, but may I ask what area you're talking about? You don't need to answer if you'd prefer not to. <i>Guns are scarier to a criminal then some body kicking them in the crotch.</i> Not from what I've heard. <i>I believe people are by natural amoral and violent. By social institution people act moral.</i> Then we should put out faith in our social institutions to help solve these problems, don't you think? If everybody owns a gun, and people are naturally violent and amoral, what's to prevent complete anarchy? Only our social institutions can help. We need to regulate gun ownership. <i>I don’t care about gun murder I care about murder rates. Still say a nation.</i> If you look at overall murder rates, I still think the US has one of the highest per capita in the world - certainly in terms of democratic countries. <i>How does government do that? They pass laws and tax people. Both are oppression I don’t have the freedom to kill somebody. They passed a law to stop that.</i> They tax people in order to provide services such as roads, health care, welfare, education and many more. Would you want to live in an every-man-for-himself society? <i>Social benefits are all paid by taxes. This takes away the freedom to spend my money how I want hence oppression.</i> Do you ever use the roads? Maybe you don't want to pay for them, but if everybody felt the same way they wouldn't be there. Me: <i>You seem a little mixed up about this. I suggest you go away and find out something about government before you start criticising it. It works primarily for your benefit.</i> You: <i>That’s really close minded.</i> How so?
Basically those that jeopardize my safety. If I was in danger, yes. Saving me from the danger turns out well for me, wouldn't you say? If escalation of violence means me defending myself against an attacker, so be it. I don't believe in violence except for sport (boxing, kickboxing, etc.) and defense of self, family or country. Ah, so it is. When I looked at it the first time the page must have still been loading because the thing wasn't spinning.
Galt: Ok. Now let's look at it from the other side of the fence. <i>Would you settle a dispute with your next-door neighbour by pulling a gun on him? I think you would.</i> Hypthetical neighbour: Oh yes. If that Galt guy threatened me, I'd definitely pull a gun on him. I know he owns a gun, so he could be putting my life or my family's life in danger. <i>How is that going to turn out well?</i> Hypthetical neighbour: Saving me from the danger turns out well for me, wouldn't you say? If escalation of violence means me defending myself against an attacker, so be it. ---- You see? If everybody thinks the same way as you do, what we get is a net increase in violence, and everybody loses.
The easier it is for YOU to get a gun, to proctect/defend yourself and family, the easier it is for the criminals to get one.
James R., The thing is that many hunters whose activity is often listed as sport, are in fact going to eat what they kill (or most of it) - and in some cases, you're actually not talking about hunting the animal, so much as self-defence from the animal. For an example, a friend of mine recently went on holiday in Norway and some of the off-lying islands. Carrying a fullbore rifle or handgun was legally mandatory, mainly because polar bears aren't as cute and cuddly as Coca-Cola would have you believe... Similar notes can be made about many members of the bear family, which are reasonably common in many areas of the US, as well as some large members of the cat family, again common in many areas of the US. Hell, some species won't simply kill you if they feel threatened or too hungry or just plain grouchy - some, like black bears, will actively hunt you. So, while I wouldn't go hunting for deer unless I was in dire need of a food source, I wouldn't go into some places (such as, oh, say, all of Alaska and pretty much all of the Appalchian trail, as well as similar hiking trails) without a high-caliber, short-barrelled rifle or 12-guage shotgun loaded with double-O buckshot. And that's not fear so much as it's a reasonable precaution - humans just aren't built to hold their own with large predators without tools. That said, there are some yahoos that will merrily hunt without reason and I don't like them too much - but neither will most people that actually understand why hunting is done and what's involved. In Ireland and the UK, you generally have to be a member of a registered firearms club when applying for your licence. In pretty much every shooting atrocity (Hungerford and Dunblane), the person doing the shooting had either had concerns expressed to the local police, or had been flat-out refused membership by the clubs and then the police overruled that decision. So I've no problem with the club membership requirement - it's a reasonable precaution - but I live in a small country where you can drive from coast to coast in about eight hours, and I live in an urban area. I can imagine a gun club might be more akward for someone living on their own several hours from anywhere, which is rather possible for US citizens. The idea of keeping the firearms at the club, however, is right out. My rifles (and their gear) cost me several thousand euros (around the $8000 mark in total). I currently store my air rifle in the rifle club in college and my .22 at home (the bolt, without which you cannot fire the rifle, is stored in college). But the club, because it's on campus, has 24/7 security with guards and CCTV, it's in a 200lb safe that's bolted to a structural wall and the floor, and there are four locked doors between my rifle and the nearest public area. That's rather unusual for a rifle club. Hell, that's better than you find in Northern Ireland! So from a security perspective, I don't want to put highly expensive gear in a single location with several other people's highly expensive gear, in a publicly registered location - because it's a prime target for burgulars. Both Austrailia and London banned all handguns (including olympic target shooting guns, which was a major point of contention that I'll get to in a second), and the net effect was that gun-related crime rose by up to a factor of three or four in some areas, and fell in no areas. In other words, both places, in a kneejerk response to tragedies where mentally unbalanced people shot lots of other people (and blame cannot be laid on the shooting community in the UK, as I explained above, they had barred the shooter in the Dunblane case from every shooting club he'd applied to), banned handguns. The end result was a rise in gun-related crime. As to the target shooting guns, they were banned as well, which meant that the UK olympic team had to train in Northern Ireland or France or the Channel Islands, at yet more expense to them (with very few exceptions in the UK and Ireland, shooters are not funded even for the olympics - apart from the plane ticket to the games - unlike the situation in the US or France or Italy or Austrailia or whereever). This was despite the fact that they were blameless. And the circumstances surrounding the decision were that the target shooting community agreed to wait for the outcome of the inquiry into Dunblane, and so did the government - and then the government reneged on that agreement and banned handguns and the target-shooting community were caught flatfooted and lost half the events in their sport. Now I mention this for a reason - namely, that it explains why shooters, especially over here, are very, very, very cautious and mistrustful when it comes to government regulations regarding firearms. It's not unjustified, and it's often been shown to be correct. Actually, the experiences in London and Austrailia have shown that to be incorrect. Actually, that's not true either. Ireland, the UK, France, Switzerland, in fact pretty much all of Europe have gun control laws that allow people to have guns in their homes and we don't shoot each other regularly, even in cases of domestic violence. Do you have statistics showing that Americans do? Cultural aspects most certainly factor heavily into it - but frankly, I think that the lack of training plays a nearly equal role, and in the cases of accidental deaths, it's often the only factor. spuriousmonkey, Every "civilised country" I know of, other than Japan, allows people to own guns for self-protection, simply because no police force I know of is capable of providing , or does actually provide, any assurance that in the event of you being attacked or your house broken into, that they can protect you. Their function is not so much to keep you alive during a crime as to find the criminals and prosecute them after the crime. And as Xev said: "the police force in my town takes a good five minutes to respond.". Now where I live, the response time is approximately half an hour to an hour. Now it's a good area, so I don't feel the need to have a firearm for self-defence - but there are places in Dublin, for example, where I simply will not go because I can't carry a firearm for self-defence - purely because of the recorded and acknowleged crime rates. (Street crime in Ireland is currently a problem, and it's not robbery - it's simple assault or rape, usually by drunken groups of people). Now I can currently avoid those areas because I don't live there - but what about when I have to live there? In most cases, nike-do is your best bet for survival - but not always. In cases of rape, for example, you may run, but since you're the object of interest for the ciminal, they'll follow you instead of going after your possessions. And to quote a protest banner I saw some years ago and which has since stuck in my mind, "Rapists love unarmed victims". I guess the best way to sum up my thinking on this is that once any daughter of mine was old enough (around 12 or so to start with for air rifles, more for air pistols and yet more for .22s and the like), I'd train her to use firearms because it's a fantastic sport (and one that women have a distinct advantage in), and once she left home, I'd buy her a .22 pistol to carry for self-defence in extremis. I'm a left-wing-commie-pinko-long-haired-hippie-liberal about a lot of things, as most who've read what I post will attest to - but I don't believe that the world is perfect and I don't believe that civilians carrying guns contribute to the problem when they're trained for it. And that opinion comes from precedence and experience.
Wow! I want one of those shot-guns!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My mates Dad has one locked away in a cupboard, and a hand-pistol too, as well as an air-rifle. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have a Bow and Arrows, complete with a leather quiver (that is belted around the waist)! I also have a divers knife, that is strapped to the leg, and a Bowie hunting knife (with a compass on the handle, and some water-proof matches, some fishing string and hooks, some blue-tac ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), and a metal saw 'string', inside the handle) as well as the saw 'key-rings' at the base of the handle.
I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, but I can see where you're coming from. Sure, if you're putitng your gun away for long term storage. Well I'm sorry, but I really am not feeling any compassion for someone trying to rob me. If I find you in my house at night when you shouldn't be there, you will be shot. In the knee or foot or something. But if you try to attack me, then it is the chest. True, but respect the rights and wishes of people that do actually prefer to use a ranged weapon over a close combat one. But it *could* happen. And I want to be prepared. It probably wouldn't happen, but there is always that chance. Then it is still your fault for attacking me. Yes, you may have a valid reason, but it is not an excuse. If I drive drunk and kill someone, I will be charged with manslaughter. Having a mental problem or being under the influence is not an excuse. If it is you, or me, YOU will always win in that case. So yeah. There is always alternative ways. However, those carrying varying levels of risk. I am not a close combat type person. I'm a ranged type guy. I don't need a Criminology degree to know when someone is wrong and when someone is right in the case of such a basic thing as breaking and entering, assault, and raping.
I can't think of any scenario where that would be necessarry. If you feel you are in sudden danger you should(theoretically) go to the police, not a gun store. It seems to me that either trigger locks must be made mandatory or gun owners must be held responsible if their guns fall into the wrong hands and are used in crimes. The former seems a better solution to me, as the latter would cause people to be punished for things they didn't really have control over. I don't know, maybe you would, but many(if not most) people who own guns for self defense having been awakened by somone breaking into their house would not be thinking clearly enough to shoot someone in the foot. It seems to me that the more likely scenario would be that they empty their clip in the general direction of the intruder before even assertaining the level of the threat they posed. I do, just pointing out that having leftist political views and/or choosing not to own a gun does not mean someone will stand by and watch their family be harmed.
I think a waiting period is a good idea for the reason that Jerrek quoted (sorry sciforumer, don't know your name). Well I woudn't shoot them, but like you said 'they shoudn't be in your house at all'. It would be better to not need a weapon and have one than to need it and not have one. I would just threaten them with it to get them out of my house. There may be controvery around having guns etc. but I would think someone is more likely to survive a bullet wound (to the abdomen) than a stabbing; bullet wounds would be easier to fix and stabbings are more rough, and more likely bigger! I assume the point is that it is easier to shoot someone than to stab them: shooting is just pulling trigger, however I cannot see someone going out of their way to shoot someone, unless they had a problem with them in the first place!! If we are all living productive lives etc then why would someone end up being shot?? Again, as with the argument of television programmes and kids: the two variables are the humans nature and the weapon, and the answer should tell you that the humans nature is more likely to be the problem than the weapon. However given America's loose standing on true laws I would question whether they should have been allowed at all! A small example ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -sorry!) : Variables: Human nature; evil---pure; and the weapons; no weapon (to) the most powerful weapon (a nuclear button) Nature---Weapon---result Evil-----No weapon at all---Still destruction | | \/ 'Perfect'-Nuclear button--Nothing happens
Hydrostatic Shock -Someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you don't have another escape route. -Someone is trying to rape you. -A group of people are trying to injure you, as opposed to robbing you. And that's just the first five seconds of thought... Someone robs me, uses a boltcutter on the trigger lock and shoots someone else - am I now responsible for their death? That's highly unrealisitic and dangerous. If someone breaks in and you can't escape out a side window, you make sure the gun is loaded, yell at them that you're armed, display the gun and if none of that scares them off, you put two rounds in the centre of the chest. You do not aim to injure, ever. Every cop, every soldier, everyone trained in self defence is trained to do it that way, for a damn good reason - knees and feet are small targets on a moving human, and if someone's broken in and hasn't run off when they know you're armed, it's most likely because they're armed themselves and your life is in imminent danger.
Ireland, the UK, the Channel Islands, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland. You're calling the entire world (bar Japan) uncivilised? Not that I wouldn't agree sometimes, but it strikes me that if you live in an uncivilised world, that's a pragmatic reason to own a pistol, rather than a reason not to...
