# Do you believe in guns?



## Thesemindz (Feb 3, 2009)

Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."

So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns." 

Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves?

Since I'm asking, I do believe that people have the right to use violence to defend themselves. I believe that includes using whatever tools you have at hand, whether they are your hands, knives, a hammer, a baseball bat, or a firearm. I believe that if someone decides to do violence against me or my loved ones unprovoked, they forfeit their right to security. They buy the violence I will do in defense, and _*I*_ feel no compunction or guilt over the consequences of _*their*_ actions.

I mean this as a serious question. I'm not trying to set you up. I'm not trying to belittle you. I have my own opinion, I'm curious what yours is.


-Rob


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."
> 
> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> 
> ...


 I don't believe in the use of guns for killing people, but I do believe in the use of guns for hunting food.  I believe there are too many people who own guns for the false sense of security in might bring.
I believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but does this have to include guns?  For me it does not need to.  I believe that there are too many innocent people killed by the ignorant use of firearms everyday.
My house will never have a gun inside it, I will defend myself and my family in other ways if need be, but my wife and I both agree that guns are not needed in our house.


----------



## tellner (Feb 4, 2009)

I don't believe in them.
I don't fetishize them.
The few times they're appropriate nothing else will do, so I own a couple.


----------



## chinto (Feb 4, 2009)

yes, I believe in guns and owning them. they are a good tool.  I am a citizen of the United States of America and so have a right to them! that is guaranteed by the constitution. 

I do NOT believe they give a false sense of security if you know how to use one. but i do think that some people do not realize that all they are is a good dewalt drill from a distance.  in short they make holes at a distance. they are not a magic wand and they are not a cure all, but they are efficient and effective when used properly for several things.  ( most of them making a hole in one thing or some other; for fun, or food or in defense of your life or some one else's.)

history shows that free societies  are  armed, have free markets and have private property.  it also shows that if they are not allowed arms, the other things normally are taken over time from them too.  

SO YES I BELIEVE IN GUNS .. and HAMMERS AND AXES, AND SWORDS, AND KNIVES AND STICKS AND STONES AND WHAT EVER ELSE IS OUT THERE!


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> My house will never have a gun inside it, I will defend myself and my family in other ways if need be, but my wife and I both agree that guns are not needed in our house.


 
Good to know.

After all, I live by the motto that "when you have beaten your sword into a plowshare, you will find yourself subjugated by me, for I kept my sword."

Those houses with the signs that say "Gun Free Home" outside them?

Yeah.  I love those too.  Makes mine less desireable of a target.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

When you need a gun, nothing else will do.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 4, 2009)

Trouble with these gun free homes is, when something goes down, and an emergency happens, in the middle of the night, the first thing they do is call 911 and all those people come over in a hurry, with all those GUNS. What is worse, is the turn the other cheek deal, when you run out of cheeks who do you call, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 bingo someone with fresh cheeks and a gun. I feel bad for all the pacifist that dont believe in violences but have no problem with someone else handling their problems. The meek will inherit the earth, but those darn people with guns, will have to see to it, that they can keep it. Im a morning person, so Im always good for a rant when its this early. Hold on, I hear a noise, me and rosco are going to check it out.........


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 4, 2009)

I don't believe in guns either...the hundreds of thousands of people who use them every year to defend themselves should not use such evil devices.  It's better to be murdered, raped, robbed, or kidnapped than to perpetuate the cycle of violence...


----------



## Tomu (Feb 4, 2009)

"Never bring a knife to a gun fight."

Theres a reason you here this said over and over.
There are certain situations where only the force a firearm can provide is needed and I think it is the responsible thing to do to be prepared for such situations.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 4, 2009)

No I don't believe guns are necessary.  In Australia it's quite difficult to get a license and if u do have a gun at your house the ammo and guns have to be stored in separate gun safes so even if the time to use them did arrive the time to get the gun ready would be too long to make it effective.  The right to bear arms in America is the reason it is necessary now for US citizens to own guns because it is just too easy for any ******* to buy a gun.

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf



> *Myth: The Availability of Guns Causes Crime*
> 
> 
> *Fact:* Though the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides and suicides has not risen.29​
> ...


 


> *Myth: Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal.*
> 
> *Fact:* Of the 43 deaths reported in this flawed study, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved criminal activity between the family members (drug deals gone bad).38
> 
> ...


 


> *Myth: 58% of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances*
> 
> *Fact:* &#8220;Acquaintance&#8221; murders are primarily drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by &#8220;customers&#8221;, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their johns, and so on.46
> 
> ...


 


> *Myth:13 children are killed each day by guns*
> 
> *Fact:* Adults included &#8211; This &#8220;statistic&#8221; includes &#8220;children&#8221; up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source. Since most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity49 (incidentally, &#8216;child&#8217; is defined by Webster as a person between birth and puberty, typically 13-14 years).
> 
> ...


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

thetruth said:


> No I don't believe guns are necessary. In Australia it's quite difficult to get a license and if u do have a gun at your house the ammo and guns have to be stored in separate gun safes so even if the time to use them did arrive the time to get the gun ready would be too long to make it effective. The right to bear arms in America is the reason it is necessary now for US citizens to own guns because it is just too easy for any ******* to buy a gun.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 

Where do these people keep getting these ideas......


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."
> 
> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> 
> ...


 

Take a wild guess.

You're probably right.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 4, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Where do these people keep getting these ideas......


 
The Media. People like Rosie O'Donnel and Michael Moore.  After all if you believe them you can walk into a bank and with no wait or background check of any kind, the Bankers will hand you a loaded rifle and say "There you go good buddy"


----------



## terryl965 (Feb 4, 2009)

Do I believe in guns, our nation was built behind the use of guns, so of course I believe in guns.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."



I know how varied our members opinions are on this one....but here's mine.  I suppose that it depends on what you mean by "believe in guns."  If you mean believe in the right to own them, then yes, I believe in guns.  If you mean do you believe in the right to do what you want with them, then the answer is no.  I own a gun, I keep it in my house.  I don't think of it as a self defense weapon, nor do I ever intend to use it for self defense, although if the situation arises, I am prepared to.  

I do not believe in the right of civilians to carry concealed though.  It seems to me that the people who think that they need a gun, probably will.  Those who don't think that they will need it, probably won't.  I know all of the arguments against it, like the knife and gun fight and being prepared, etc.  If you have it, you are more likely to use it.  

I also believe in proportional use and escalation of force.  Therefore de-escalation when possible. 

I've been in places where it is _really_ necessary to carry weapons.  But they aren't concealed and that has led me to vastly alter my opinions on the matter.  I can't see carrying a gun around in my hometown, where I feel safe.



Thesemindz said:


> Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves?



Most certainly I believe in Self Defense.  People have the right to defend themselves in any circumstance where their life is in danger.  People take this way too far though.  It is a slippery slope for most people who can't find that ledge.  There are way too many people out there who think that they have the right to defend themselves from from anyone who pisses them off for any reason.  As a whole, most people aren't responsible enough to determine when the use of force is appropriate and how much force is appropriate.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

Very similar to my own thoughts on the matter, *Buzzy* - most especially your last sentence.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 4, 2009)

Guns are just another tool in the self defense box.  For me I believe it's a necessity, since I most likely won't be able to power walk out of dangers way.

Guns are the great equalizer against violent attack.  Is it the only tool availer?  No.  That is why I also study martial arts of various types.


----------



## zDom (Feb 4, 2009)

Yep  I've SEEN one with my own eyes!  (couldn't resist...)


But seriously: I wish they didn't exist as I have a skill set most folk don't have.

But they DO exist ... so I am now learning how to use one. Chances are I will never have to  after all I made it the first 40 years of my life without ever needing one. I hope the next 40 years go the same way.

I have applied for a CCW. Probably have about 30-odd days before I hear back on that.

I probably won't actually carry as it seems to me to be a pain in the butt.. or lower back.. or under the shoulder . But in the future when I'm 60, 70? I might.

I probably WILL have it in my vehicle (legal in Missouri, even WITHOUT a CCW) when I anticipate traveling in places I wouldn't want to be broken down at.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> I don't believe in the use of guns for killing people, but I do believe in the use of guns for hunting food. I believe there are too many people who own guns for the false sense of security in might bring.
> I believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but does this have to include guns? For me it does not need to. I believe that there are too many innocent people killed by the ignorant use of firearms everyday.
> My house will never have a gun inside it, I will defend myself and my family in other ways if need be, but my wife and I both agree that guns are not needed in our house.


 
I think you and your wife have every right to decide what is and is not a part of your life and your home. If you choose not to keep and use firearms in your defense, then that should be respected.

However, it would seem from your post that you believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but only within a certain range and only up to a certain level of force. 

I mean this as a serious question. Could a person use a bow and arrow to defend themselves? If so, then range is not your issue, it is degree of force.

So why do you feel it is ok to use violence to defend yourself, but only up to a certain degree, regardless of the violence brought against you?


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

A little extra thing to consider to that inherently complex question is that context matters a great deal.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

tellner said:


> I don't believe in them.
> I don't fetishize them.
> The few times they're appropriate nothing else will do, so I own a couple.


 

I don't think any kind of violence fetish is healthy. I think a person can have a healthy respect and appreciation for firearms, just like they can for music, or paintings, or movies. But when it crosses over into an unhealthy obsession, it can be dangerous. Just like any other unhealthy obsession.

I see firearms as a tool. As such, there are situations which may require that tool. So just like I have hammers and screwdrivers and can openers in my home, I also have firearms. In case I find myself in that unique situation which requires the appropriate tool.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Good to know.
> 
> After all, I live by the motto that "when you have beaten your sword into a plowshare, you will find yourself subjugated by me, for I kept my sword."


 
While I understand the greater point you are making, I have to disagree with your choice of words.

I don't plan on subjugating anyone. I don't practice or approve of oppression of free people in any form. I won't be bothering those who choose to abandon their freedom in favor of some shadowy promise of security, I only wish their choices didn't create such suffering in my life.

If a person chooses to beat their sword into a plowshare, that's fine, just don't come for my swords. I say, plowshares for plowing, swords for swording.


-Rob


----------



## tellner (Feb 4, 2009)

I have to add a bit of Guerilla Semantics to what zDom said:

Spoken: "No, your Honor. I have never in my life shot a gun."
Unspoken: "That would be dangerous and expensive. I've FIRED a few, never SHOT one."


----------



## searcher (Feb 4, 2009)

Yes, I believe in the need of the people to have firearms AND know how to use them for the proterction of themselves, their family, and their countrymen from those that would take their freedom through murder, rape, burglary, or ENSLAVEMENT.   It is the right of every man and woman to not have to bow down to another human being for any reason.   Our civil rights are ours, because of firearms. 

The people who don't like firearms are the sheep that rely on us with firearms to come to their rescue when they are in trouble.   These sheeple have a diluted sense of security and they think they are protected by laws.   Criminals and tyrants don't care about laws.



"The doorway to freedom is framed with muskets."
--Charlton Heston​


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2009)

tellner said:


> I have to add a bit of Guerilla Semantics to what zDom said:
> 
> Spoken: "No, your Honor. I have never in my life shot a gun."
> Unspoken: "That would be dangerous and expensive. I've FIRED a few, never SHOT one."


 

Are you a fan of Stephen Fry? Very funny, clever man.


----------



## tellner (Feb 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Are you a fan of Stephen Fry? Very funny, clever man.


 
Never heard of him, I'm afraid.


----------



## Raynac (Feb 4, 2009)

thetruth said:


> No I don't believe guns are necessary. In Australia it's quite difficult to get a license and if u do have a gun at your house the ammo and guns have to be stored in separate gun safes so even if the time to use them did arrive the time to get the gun ready would be too long to make it effective. The right to bear arms in America is the reason it is necessary now for US citizens to own guns because it is just too easy for any ******* to buy a gun.
> 
> Cheers
> Sam:asian:


 
I can see were your comming from Sam, the guns arn't really nessisary. I live in canada and I've never seen a handgun in person, only a hunting rifle and the last thought on the minds of the people who owned that rifle was self defense. I can understand if your in the states though, if everyone else has a gun you dont want to be the person left defenceless. But if people are not allowed to bear arms like  in Canada or Australia, you'll see they are pretty pointless.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Raynac said:


> I can see were your comming from Sam, the guns arn't really nessisary. I live in canada and I've never seen a handgun in person, only a hunting rifle and the last thought on the minds of the people who owned that rifle was self defense. I can understand if your in the states though, if everyone else has a gun you dont want to be the person left defenceless. But if people are not allowed to bear arms like in Canada or Australia, you'll see they are pretty pointless.


 
What should free people do when the elected republic in which they live becomes a despotic tyranny? Do people have the right to defend themselves from the oppression of the state? If so, what should they use towards that aim? If not, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2009)

tellner said:


> Never heard of him, I'm afraid.


 
He's Hugh Laurie's  House) comedy partner, he's also in Blackadder etc he has a way with words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKdGwfMD8u8&feature=related


This may explain why we aren't anxious to have the British public armed lol!


----------



## KELLYG (Feb 4, 2009)

YES!
I believe in guns.  I feel like with anything, that you can use that has the capability to kill yourself or another person that, that you must educate yourself on how to use it and use it responsibly.

I have several in my house.  All of them are loaded and ready to use, in the case of an emergency.  I live alone and have no children, so there is no worry about someone getting a hold of them that is under age. If I had small children in my house I probably would not have them.  I would worried about them gaining access to them and doing themselves harm.


​ 
​


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> What should free people do when the elected republic in which they live becomes a despotic tyranny? Do people have the right to defend themselves from the oppression of the state? If so, what should they use towards that aim? If not, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive.
The reason people 'exist' is probably a philosophical argument that again has nothing to do with governments. No one 'exists' to support any type of government! I'm really not sure what you are asking here.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive.
> The reason people 'exist' is probably a philosophical argument that again has nothing to do with governments. No one 'exists' to support any type of government! I'm really not sure what you are asking here.


 
It helped a bit in the 1700's...

As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.

For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.


----------



## Raynac (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> What should free people do when the elected republic in which they live becomes a despotic tyranny? Do people have the right to defend themselves from the oppression of the state? If so, what should they use towards that aim? If not, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?
> 
> 
> -Rob


 
well the goverment system in canada is a little different, your guy's states are given quite a of power in comparison to our provinces. we dont have to defend ourselfs from the oppersion of the provinces because they simply don't have enough power to opress us. any laws that are passed that disagree with the charter of rights and freedoms are immediatly stuck down by the supreme court... even so do individual states really have the power to oppress you/ would your goverment let them?..

your general statement confuses me that sounds like nothing I've ever heard of in the states or canada.

oh and sorry if i gave off the impression that I thought in the states everyone has guns, ive been there and I as i said I've never seen a hangun in my life. but when listening to some of the people here I will sometimes make general assumptions.

and about what ive posted right now, i hope i haven't offended anyone because besides some general stuff i learned in law class i don't know too much about your guy's goverment system


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive.
> The reason people 'exist' is probably a philosophical argument that again has nothing to do with governments. No one 'exists' to support any type of government! I'm really not sure what you are asking here.


 
Alright, again, I disagree. I believe that an armed populace is the first and most effective check on tyranny. You may not agree, and that's fine, but I feel history bears that out. There are numerous cases throughout history where an oppressive dictatorial state has moved to restrict or deny the people's use and possession of the common weapons of self defense in order to more effectively oppress the populace.

Examples of this include Qin Shi Huangdi confiscating weapons to prevent uprisings when he became the first emperor of imperial China, and the Satsuma clan from Japan doing the same after invading Okinawa, or Hideyoshi's "Great Sword Hunt" designed to regulate "the possession of unnecessary implements [of war] which make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tend to foment uprisings." The Nueva Planta decrees of 1710 imposed by Charles the Third even required that kitchen knives be strapped to tables. In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

You may not agree, and that's fine, but for me the point is made. Governments have not done this in the interests of protecting the people, but rather in the interests of protecting themselves. Many of the martial arts practiced around the world today are the decendants of weapons control legislation by oppressive state authorities.

So yes, I believe that firearms, as well as knives, fists, and minds, are tools with which we can slow the progress of tyranny. You may argue that one man with a gun can't stop an army, and you're right. I hope if it ever comes to that I'm not the only person left who loves freedom.

As to your second point, you have essentially dodged my question, which was do people have the right to defend themselves against state oppression? By turning the question to a rhetorical one about the meaning of life, you fail to address my more concrete question.

Do people have a right to defend themselves against state oppression? Yes, or no. If yes, then how would you propose they do that in the absence of the common means of defense? If no, then do you believe that people exist to support any state which claims proprietary ownership over them?

Let me put it a little differently, do women have the right to defend themselves against rape? If yes, then how would you propose they do that in the absence of the common means of defense? If no, then do you believe that women exist to gratify any man who chooses to rape them?

It's the same question. Either people have a right to defend themselves from oppression, or they don't. If they do, then simply saying, "you aren't strong enough anyway," is unacceptable. Strong or weak, they still have the right to fight for their lives. If they do not have the right to defend themselves against oppression, then you are saying that they must submit to any oppressive force which lays claim to them.


-Rob


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 4, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive.



Thats funny.  I suppose we in the US are still bowing to your king then? ;P


----------



## Raynac (Feb 4, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Thats funny. I suppose we in the US are still bowing to your king then? ;P


 
That would be a monarchy  not that it matters all that much


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Raynac said:


> well the goverment system in canada is a little different, your guy's states are given quite a of power in comparison to our provinces. we dont have to defend ourselfs from the oppersion of the provinces because they simply don't have enough power to opress us. any laws that are passed that disagree with the charter of rights and freedoms are immediatly stuck down by the supreme court... even so do individual states really have the power to oppress you/ would your goverment let them?..
> 
> your general statement confuses me that sounds like nothing I've ever heard of in the states or canada.
> 
> ...


 

So you're saying that your provinces can't oppress you because the government won't let them.

And what of oppression at the government level? You have already said that the "people are not allowed to bear arms." What other freedoms do you not possess? What of freedom of expression? Canadian authorities have prevented the importation of literature on the basis of obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Print). What of women's rights? It wasn't until 1929 that Canada even recognized women as persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persons_Case) under the law. What of minorities rights? The canadian government has forceably relocated it's own citizens in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment). You may argue that those things happened a long time ago, but states have been oppressing their people for thousands of years. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're suddenly past that.

I'm not saying Canada is a worse country than any other, nor that America is better. I'm saying that states are by the very nature oppressive, and that failing to recognize that fact doesn't change it.

As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.

State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?

You argue that your country is free from oppression, I would argue that no man who pays tribute to another man at the point of a gun is free from oppression.


-Rob


----------



## Deaf Smith (Feb 4, 2009)

Long time a go a guy asked Gen. LeMay about the awfulness of the Atom Bomb and what happened to Japan.

LeMay said, "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined." 

And he did not see any difference in moralness of the Bomb .vs. any other type of warfare death. For when you are dead, you are dead.

Well, I know some people here have an aversion for guns, yet train to kill with their hands, feet, bo, sword, stick, tonfa, and other fun instruments. I know of no difference between dying of a gunshot and dying of a knife/sword/club/chain/etc wound. Dead is dead and wounded is wounded.

I believe in weapons to defend oneself. If I have the right to defend myself and those around me, then I have the right to the means of defense. Effective defense. If the miliary and police use them for their basic personal weapons, then I, and other citizens, have the right to use them.

I believe in using the most effective one that is common. The gun today is the most effective basic personal weapon out there. And like or not it's common throughout the world. And thus it's the one I use until 'phasers' become realistic!

Deaf


----------



## Raynac (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> So you're saying that your provinces can't oppress you because the government won't let them.
> 
> And what of oppression at the government level? You have already said that the "people are not allowed to bear arms." What other freedoms do you not possess? What of freedom of expression? Canadian authorities have prevented the importation of literature on the basis of obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Canada#Print). What of women's rights? It wasn't until 1929 that Canada even recognized women as persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persons_Case) under the law. What of minorities rights? The canadian government has forceably relocated it's own citizens in the past (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Arctic_relocation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment). You may argue that those things happened a long time ago, but states have been oppressing their people for thousands of years. Don't make the mistake of thinking they're suddenly past that.
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.

while it is true we loose alot of our money for programs we didn't vote for and can't use, we also get alot back from it, and each of us are probley entitled to things that others can't use, for example on my farm if we buy a windmill (up to a certain price) the goverment will pay for half of it but if you don't have a farm... also the free health care is a blessing and has saved me during many asthma attacks.

i guess everyone is forced to pay so that people who don't pay can't take advantage of those who do pay in.

but overall I can't refute your arguement, I can just put my trust in the goverment  and hope they won't do anything oppresive enough that we need to take action against them


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Thats funny. I suppose we in the US are still bowing to your king then? ;P


 

This is an aside, so don't let it de-rail the main intent of the thread (and it's not particularly significant that I quoted *Cryo* as a header) but the history of what you call the War of Independance is rather different from the common slant I have seen it given on-line.

The tale often spoken is that a band of doughty rebels threw off the yoke of the English Empire through their courage and skill at arms.

The rebellion certainly started with a group of Englishmen seeking to make for themselves an independance where they did not have to pay taxes to their founding country.

However, it was the French that did a great deal of the fighting on land and provided most of the trouble at sea when it came to intefering with our shipping over troops and supplies.

As far as I know (and I am more than willing to be shown wrong as I'm not on a polemic here) the proto-American's never won a single major engagement where they were not heavily supported by line troops of the French. Skirmish tactics do not win battles on their own and altho' they were very good at it, that was the mainstay of the rebels.

I have often wondered why the French are not given greater honour by the American's for their part in that rebellion. After all, there are American streets named after prominent French players in that fracas and, I believe, the odd statue here and there and yet it does not seem to be common knowledge just how large the debt owed to England's hereditory enemy actually is.

Why bring this up? Well, in part, I am not ashamed to admit that it scourges my sense of fair-play to have the rebellion trumpeted as a great triumph against my country when in fact we were fighting half-heartedly with one arm tied behind our backs (the rebel leaders picked their moment well, you can't take that away from them).

The major reason tho' is that, as a former professional in the field of history, I can't not say something when I see, yet again, the 'truth' (from my perspective) being distorted and forgotten.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

I don't know why Americans feel the need to point out that we won our Independence from England (with help or not...strategically and politically the colonists "won" and maintained their Independence from England and France.) when many (99% of mine at least) of our ancestors arrived long after the Revolution.

Likewise I don't know why any Englishmen would get their dander up over exactly by who, how or why the Revolution was won or lost. It was pretty much their people on either side of the fight anyway. Wikipedia refers to the Revolution as the equivalent of an English "Civil War".


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Raynac said:


> Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.
> 
> while it is true we loose alot of our money for programs we didn't vote for and can't use, we also get alot back from it, and each of us are probley entitled to things that others can't use, for example on my farm if we buy a windmill (up to a certain price) the goverment will pay for half of it but if you don't have a farm... also the free health care is a blessing and has saved me during many asthma attacks.
> 
> ...


 
Or you could learn to put your trust in yourself and live your life as freely as possible without relying on your government to provide for either your security or your windmills.

I did in fact see the aboriginal slavery, but didn't post it because I didn't want anyone to miss my point by focusing on such a hot button issue. While I understand your reluctance to see any form of government subsidization as oppression, I can't agree.

Let's take away the words "health care" and "welfare" and replace them with the word "pizza."

What if your government declared that everyone had a right to a pizza, and that those who could not afford a pizza would have their pizza paid for by those who could. Let's say that further, the government set the cost on pizza so that private pizza providers couldn't make unfair profits off of the sale of pizza, which is every man's right. Let's also add that the government set a limit on the amount of pizza that each man can have at any one time, so that we can make sure that there is enough pizza for everyone.

Now, at first, everyone is happy because they get their pizza. But some pizza companies were selling really expensive high end pizza and now they have to sell the same pizza as everyone else, so they move into different industries. And the government didn't set cost limitations on the cost of cheese and pepperoni, so pizza companies start paying more for the products necessary to make the pizza than they are legally allowed to charge for the end product. Soon, pizza companies are going out of business.

As fewer and fewer pizza companies survive, more and more people are unable to get their pizza, so some turn to the black market to get pizza. Unfortunately, by its very nature, the black market is unreliable and so some get bad pizza. But because they went outside the accepted infrastructure for their pizza, they have no legal recourse.

Eventually, there are so few pizza companies that pizza rationing has to be expanded, and now each person is only allowed a slice of pizza, and fat people don't get any pizza because they probably ate more than their fill already. Unfortunately, this rationing further reduces the profitability of the pizza manufacturer, and even more go out of business.

Soon there aren't any pizza places left, but the government still insists you have a right to pizza. Where do you go to get that right?

And what, besides government fiat, gave you the right to the fruit of another man's labor in the first place? What gave you the right to demand that I give you something I've produced at great cost for a price you set? What gave you the right to decide that I can't sell my product to some people, but I have to sell it to others? What gave you the right to decide how much of my product anyone can buy at a time? What gave you the right to take money out of your neighbor's pocket to pay for your pizza?

When we talk about health care many people get emotional because we're all afraid to die. When we talk about pizza, the argument seems silly.

Because it is.


-Rob


----------



## elder999 (Feb 4, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> As far as I know (and I am more than willing to be shown wrong as I'm not on a polemic here) the proto-American's never won a single major engagement where they were not heavily supported by line troops of the French. Skirmish tactics do not win battles on their own and altho' they were very good at it, that was the mainstay of the rebels.
> .


 

Off the top of my head, because it's one of those things that's stuck in it, the Battle of Charleston, which occurred 184 years before my birthday to the day (hence, the "stuck in my head" part :lol: ) was won by the Americans before the French really joined the war, on June 28, 1776, and it kept the British out of the south for nearly two years.

And George Washington won the Battle of Trenton over German Hessians commanded by the British, the day after Christmas of that same year, and won the battle of Princeton over British troops commanded by Cornwallis a week later

And, of course, while the rebels had seen many military disasters in the course of the war, it was the Battle of Saratoga, in October of 1777, that convinced the French to join with them. There, in Saratoga, New York, Daniel Morgan and Horatio Gates defeated the British general, Burgoyne........ 

Sorry, Mark-this stuff just got drilled into me from an early age, having grown up near all those areas,and having ancestors that fought in that war. No one knows better than I that, while as President Bush once said, _America has no stronger friend than Britain,_ *America has no older friend than France.*

But they wouldn't have joined up with us if we hadn't kicked some British *** first.:lfao:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 4, 2009)

And it was the South's hope to reverse the process during the Civil War..thinking that if they could kick enough Union *** that the British would step in and help them. History has a way of repeating themes....


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Raynac said:


> Hmmm i can see were you are coming from. Although after looking at the censorship page I see no error in the logic of "Most" of the decisions. but I can't argue with the fact that our goverments have made errors in the past, (big ones and i think you missed our treatment of the aborignals) and will probably make them in the future. But I can't help but think that your looking at things a bit on the extreme side.


 
I wanted to address one other issue here seperately. Yes, I am looking at this argument as one of extremes. Either we are extemely free, or we are extremely oppressed. A person may argue that in some countries they behead thousands in the public square, but in America we only rarely allow our government to torture and kill innocent people. 

To me, that is like saying it's ok to rape one women, but not ok to rape a thousand. Or it's ok to beat your wife a little, but beating your wife a lot is wrong, and beating her none at all equally so.

Often when I say that the government is doing something at the point of a gun, people respond by saying I'm being extreme. Next time your government tells you to do something, just say no. Don't do it. No matter how strenuously they demand it, object that much more vociferously. The right to protest means nothing without the right to act on your protestations. So refuse. Don't get a business license, or drive without tags, or fail to pay your taxes. Just don't. And no matter what they say or do, keep refusing to do so.

Wait and see how long it takes the guys with the guns to show up and enforce corporate policy.


-Rob


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 4, 2009)

Ah yes, the loss by Cornwallis is rather famous.  Not what I would deem a major engagement tho':

Casualties were not heavy. The British lost only 40 dead, 58 wounded and 187 missing. The Americans lost a number of able officers: General Mercer, Colonel Haslet and several others. They also lost 40 soldiers killed and wounded.

As to the Battle of Charleston, I admit I don't know that one.  The Siege of Charleston was a British victory - that can't be the one you're thinking of surely?

The Battle of Trenton did not see any British troops enagaged as far as I know as the only unit present was a single troop of 16th Light Dragoons who left before the fight started.  Again, not what I'd term a major engagement:

The Americans suffered 4 wounded casualties (rumoured that two American soldiers froze to death in the bad weather). The Hessians suffered 20 killed and around 100 wounded. 

I'll grant you Saratoga tho'; should have remembered that one.


Anyhow, I reckon we should take this 'outside', so to speak.  I only raised it to illustrate that tho' an attrractive idea, the concept that an armed populous can resist a determined government is a fallacy.  The War of Independance was won with the assistance of another, powerful and foreign, government; not by dint of the armed 'common man' of the colony.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 4, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Anyhow, I reckon we should take this 'outside', so to speak. I only raised it to illustrate that tho' an attrractive idea, the concept that an armed populous can resist a determined government is a fallacy. The War of Independance was won with the assistance of another, powerful and foreign, government; not by dint of the armed 'common man' of the colony.


 

No need to take it outside-maybe some other time, when we've got more. As for the concept being a fallacy, you should tell that to the Russians and the Afghan _mujahadeen_. While they did need U.S. (or someone's, anyway) assistance against the Soviet Mi-24 HIND helicopter, the entire reason for that particular piece of equipment being brought in was their rather successful armed resistance, at times with 19th century armaments.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> No need to take it outside-maybe some other time, when we've got more. As for the concept being a fallacy, you should tell that to the Russians and the Afghan _mujahadeen_. While they did need U.S. (or someone's, anyway) assistance against the Soviet Mi-24 HIND helicopter, the entire reason for that particular piece of equipment being brought in was their rather successful armed resistance, at times with 19th century armaments.



While this is a very interesting discussion, I believe Sukerkin was referring to taking the discussion outside the thread.  It is interesting, but has very little to do with the OP.  I do see the connection, but we seem to be talking more about the specifics of revolution than the philosophical idea of "believing in guns."


----------



## elder999 (Feb 4, 2009)

MBuzzy said:


> While this is a very interesting discussion, I believe Sukerkin was referring to taking the discussion outside the thread. It is interesting, but has very little to do with the OP. I do see the connection, but we seem to be talking more about the specifics of revolution than the philosophical idea of "believing in guns."


 
I meant the discussion around the specifics of the Revolutionary War, as I'm sure he did, and I meant that there was no need to continue that particular discussion, here or elsewhere. On the other hand:




Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."





Thesemindz said:


> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves


 



> *The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution*:





> *A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*


 
This right was secured, based upon the writings of the time, as one of the distinguishing marks of a truly free society, on the premise that one where some had this right and others did not, was not a free society at all. 

It is the very basis for so many, many, *many* Americans _believing in guns_, and is itself based, in part, on the notion of "popular revolution" against the government.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> While I understand the greater point you are making, I have to disagree with your choice of words.
> 
> I don't plan on subjugating anyone. I don't practice or approve of oppression of free people in any form.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but I don't want my swordless neighbors beating on my door to hide behine me when their enemies come beating on theirs either.  I have no problem standing side by side *with them* against their enemies, but I don't particularly want to fight *for them*.  Well, Without pay anyhow.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 4, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah, but I don't want my swordless neighbors beating on my door to hide behine me when their enemies come beating on theirs either. I have no problem standing side by side *with them* against their enemies, but I don't particularly want to fight *for them*. Well, Without pay anyhow.


 
This I agree with completely. Unfortunately, those without swords are often the quickest to call for someone with a sword to come to their aid. Think about the number of anti-gun celebrities with armed bodyguards, or the number of people who want cops to come to your house with guns to take your guns away.

I've said it before. Hiring someone with a gun to threaten me is no different than threatening me yourself. It doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility, or give you the moral high ground. If you aren't willing to use violence to defend youself, it is hypocritical to ask someone else to do so on your behalf.


-Rob


----------



## searcher (Feb 4, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> It helped a bit in the 1700's...
> 
> As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.
> 
> For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.


 

True and true and true.

The times when I was getting shot at was on foreign soil, by some of those, "My people cannot own guns" types.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 4, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I think you and your wife have every right to decide what is and is not a part of your life and your home. If you choose not to keep and use firearms in your defense, then that should be respected.
> 
> However, it would seem from your post that you believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but only within a certain range and only up to a certain level of force.
> 
> ...


It's a good point you bring up, but there are some mitigating factors that would decide the level of violence I would use.  If my life or my families life was in immediate danger I would use whatever force necessary to stop them.  That means that if there was some crazy scenario and I was in a life and death situation and there happened to be a gun next to me I would use it.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> It's a good point you bring up, but there are some mitigating factors that would decide the level of violence I would use. If my life or my families life was in immediate danger I would use whatever force necessary to stop them. That means that if there was some crazy scenario and I was in a life and death situation and there happened to be a gun next to me I would use it.


 
Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?



mozzandherb said:


> Guns are bad, so are bullets.


 


mozzandherb said:


> I don't believe in the use of guns for killing people...
> I believe people have the right to use violence to defend themselves, but does this have to include guns? For me it does not need to...
> I will defend myself and my family in other ways if need be...


 
So at first you seem to be saying that you don't accept the practice of using firearms in self defense, and yet now you are contradicting that statement. What is your justification for that?

Either you accept that firearms have their place in self defense or you don't. You can't say that it's ok for you to use them, but not ok for others to do so. You can't say that there are some situations that are severe enough to warrant their use, but that they should not be used to kill people. Not and be logically consistent.

As a tool, their purpose in self defense is killing people. Not hurting them. Yes, you can shoot to maim or injure, but the reason they work as a deterrent to crime is specifically because of their lethal nature. If a situation warrants using potentially lethal force, than you accept that a person may end up dead. It is directly contradictory to say that you are willing to use a gun in self defense, but not to kill a person with a gun.

Of course there are mitigating circumstances in any violent encounter which determine the appropriate use of force. If a 13 year old is trespassing on your property he is violating your rights. The appropriate response is probably not to pull out a pistol and blow his head off. At the same time, if you and your wife are out for a walk one night and are confronted with a trio of knife wielding assailants, shooting to kill might save both you and your wife from more than simple assault. Most legitimate cases of self defense probably can be resolved with little more than brandishing a firearm and demonstrating the will to use it. 

The fact that you feel the need to make statements about mitigating use of force and crazy life and death circumstances would seem to imply that you don't think others have considered the same. As though the rest of us who promote defensive firearms practice think they are the hammer for every nail. They clearly are not. They are a specialized tool with a specific purpose. When you need a firearm, nothing else will do, but that doesn't mean you always need a firearm.

If your aims are humanitarian, I would argue that the defensive use of firearms falls well within that category. If I'm attacked by a drunk, stepping into a fighting stance might encourage violence, drawing a firearm will probably deter it. If I'm attacked by a psychopathic monster, fighting with my hands might allow him to live to prey on others, shooting him will end the threat he poses to a civil society.

You seem to be conflicted on your position on self defense. I've always felt that an important part of defending one's self and the things one holds dear is preparing one's self ahead of time by deciding what you believe and what you are willing to do in the name of those beliefs.


-Rob


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> It helped a bit in the 1700's...
> 
> As to the "everybody in America is walking around with guns" statement upthread...have you ever visited the US? Doesnt sound like any place Ive ever been.
> 
> For all the "violent America" hype...the VAST majority of US citizens have never been the victim of a violent crime or shot anybody.


 

No I haven't been to the States but *then I never said everyone walks around with guns either.*

I was merely meaning in my post that it sounded as if it should be another thread ( which it has been made into since I posted) 
I think Sukerkin has answered very well questions on the American Independance thing which I always find amusing that some Americans are still touchy about.it was a bigger thing in american history than it was ours, at that particular time we had plenty of other colonies who in time were all given independance anyway.


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2009)

Maybe I expressed myself poorly and it was assuming I was saying you could go to the local 7-eleven and pick up a gun.  It is however a hell of a lot easier to get a gun in the states.  If I am not a member of a gun club and I don't sport shoot then only under very very extraordinary circumstances would I be able to own one. If I am a member then more than likely the gun would be required to be kept at the gun club.   I could get a .22 or a shotgun and they would have to be kept in a gun safe at home with the ammo in another safe.  No semi automatic weapons are allowed.   Also the statistic of 70 something percent of all gun crimes being with weapons bought on the street etc etc really says nothing as I am sure at one point most of those guns were bought and paid for at a gun shop in the states.    


Lastly as far as not wanting to have to defend ones neighbors if they choose not to own guns. Well I find that kind of strange.  If your neighbors were being beaten up by someone in the street would you say well I don't want to defend them because they chose not to do martial arts and I did????????    

Just because it is a constitutional right to own a gun it isn't a requirement to do so.    


Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## thetruth (Feb 5, 2009)

thetruth said:


> If I am not a member of a gun club and I don't sport shoot then only under very very extraordinary circumstances would I be able to own one. If I am a member then more than likely the gun would be required to be kept at the gun club.




I am referring to a pistol in this part and clearly a rifle and shotgun later.

Just to clarify

Cheers
Sam:asian:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just an aside to correct some terminology:

As far as self defense is concerned, there IS no "shooting to kill" and there IS no "Shooting to wound" there is ONLY shooting to stop the threat and gods help you if you ever state otherwise to the cops/jury.


----------



## Hagakure (Feb 5, 2009)

As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.

State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?

You argue that your country is free from oppression, I would argue that no man who pays tribute to another man at the point of a gun is free from oppression.


-Rob 
__________________

Hmmmm, and yet, your ownership of guns doesn't seem to be preventing the govt from passing oppressive laws/edicts. Does it? By your logic, because of all the gun ownership in the States, the rate of oppressive law passing wouldn't exist, or exist at a much lower rate - comparable to what, I don't know. Yet, the last 8 years in particular have been quite a ride in that sense... I'm not sure I agree with your argument here. But that's fine. 

However, a gun is a great leveller in my view. That said, I don't own one, or feel the need to own one. I don't believe my owning one, or everyone in my road owning one would make the govt a more or less tyrannic lot. There is quite a lot of gun ownership in the UK, not always legal, but it's there, and yet, we also have a govt that couldn't tie it's own shoelaces. For crying out loud, at the recent visit of the Chinese premiere they even hung the Union Flag upside down, fools.  

I always feel, and this is by no means a pop at the Americans on here, that gun ownership, and the discussion of it, always gets pretty emotive. I think that from a Brits perspective, I simply do not understand the fondness for the humble gun that many (notice the word "many", and not "all") Americans seem to have. Does that mean that because I'm not interested in owning a gun I am suddenly a pacifist, and would idly stand by while I or my family were in danger? Of course not. Nor does it mean that I feel the need to arm myself to the teeth, my home contains enough nasty things as it is, katana (fully tempered - battle ready so to speak), a roman gladius (an amazing stabbing weapon) and a pair of tempered, hardened butterfly knives. So I certainly don't feel undefended.

Defend yourself from tyranny by all means, it's merely that there are a multitude of ways of doing it, in which owning a gun is just one, and, in my view, by no means the most pragmatic/practical/superior.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2009)

Hagakure said:


> As to your second question, yes, our government allows the states to pass oppressive legislation all the time. In some states, consenting adults can be prosecuted for private acts of intimacy because of their gender. In other states, individuals can be imprisoned for imbibing purely recreational substances purchased in a mutually beneficial manner without fraud and used in the privacy of their homes. In others, a woman can have sex with as many men as she wants in return for a twenty dollar dinner and a ten dollar movie, but if they decide to cut out the middle man and trade sex for thirty dollars, they're both guilty of a crime.
> 
> State oppression takes many forms. How much of the fruits of your labor are being confiscated by your government every day to pay for programs you didn't vote for, don't want, and can't participate in?
> 
> ...


 


 Good post! 
The flag may have been a deliberate cry for help lol! probably a MOD Plod with a sense of humour. ( a lot of us have very warped senses of humour lol)


Guns are tools, nothing more nothing less. theres a time and a place for it's use, having one doesn't guarantee your safety or liberty. It doesn't mean you are better people for carrying one, it means you're armed not better. You don't have more freedoms because you have a gun, doesn't mean you have less because you don't carry a gun. 

The best way to fight tyranny is to be active in defending your freedom though keeping an interest in your public servants and services, attend local council meetings, campaign for your rights, don't just sit there and let others do it for you. Keep yourself informed of everything that will affect you, planning permissions in your area, education programmes in schools, whats your mayor and other elected officials up to, be a citizen not just a couch potato. Remember if you don't do anything others will and it may not be done how you'd wish it.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Ok, how do you square this with your earlier comments?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's all within the realm of context.  Your example of the 13 y/o tress passer is a perfect example of why I dont believe guns are useful.  Because there are too many people whose first reaction to such a minor situation will be to pull out their gun.  I'm sorry, but too many things can go wrong and this is just my point is that there are too many firearms in the hands of people who don't know how or when to properly use them and as a result many people die.
Our positions differ because of our history and our culture.  I am Canadian so my stance on firearms will be different than yours and just imagine that I or anyone else who has lost someone due to negligent use of a firearm, ask them and see what their position will be. 
Of course there are mitigating circumstances, but just because there are mitigating circumstances it does not change my views or beliefs towards firearms.


----------



## Mark L (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm picking up my concealed carry permit later today (in Massachusetts, not really easy to get at all). I will be purchasing a pistol soon, after which I will practice with it alot. After becoming familiar and comfortable with the tool, maybe, I'll learn how to incorporate it into my martial art. I think that will be harder with a pistol than with other weapons in my toolbox.

Actually carrying a firearm as part of my routine isn't something I can envision, but keeping it at the ready in my home is.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

Hagakure said:


> Hmmmm, and yet, your ownership of guns doesn't seem to be preventing the govt from passing oppressive laws/edicts. Does it? By your logic, because of all the gun ownership in the States, the rate of oppressive law passing wouldn't exist, or exist at a much lower rate - comparable to what, I don't know. Yet, the last 8 years in particular have been quite a ride in that sense... I'm not sure I agree with your argument here. But that's fine.
> 
> Defend yourself from tyranny by all means, it's merely that there are a multitude of ways of doing it, in which owning a gun is just one, and, in my view, by no means the most pragmatic/practical/superior.


 
You're right. Our government is passing progressively more oppressive laws and violating more and more civil rights, not only of Americans but of people all over the world. Our federal government has essentially claimed proprietary ownership of _every man, woman, and child_ on earth by saying it has the right to pick up anyone, from anywhere, on the basis of a thought crime, hold them without charges, representation, or hope of release, torture a confession out of them, and then imprison them in perpetuity.

I'm not arguing that our government isn't tyrannical, in fact quite the opposite. I believe all states survive on fraud, theft, and violence. That is precisely why I think we need every means of self protection we can aqcuire. 

Things aren't going to suddenly get better.


-Rob


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> It's all within the realm of context. Your example of the 13 y/o tress passer is a perfect example of why I dont believe guns are useful. Because there are too many people whose first reaction to such a minor situation will be to pull out their gun. I'm sorry, but too many things can go wrong and this is just my point is that there are too many firearms in the hands of people who don't know how or when to properly use them and as a result many people die.
> Our positions differ because of our history and our culture. I am Canadian so my stance on firearms will be different than yours and just imagine that I or anyone else who has lost someone due to negligent use of a firearm, ask them and see what their position will be.
> Of course there are mitigating circumstances, but just because there are mitigating circumstances it does not change my views or beliefs towards firearms.


 
So you're position is based on projecting your fears of irresponsible behavior onto all gun owners and assuming that because some people can't make rational decisions none of us should be allowed to own firearms.

Our cultures certainly are different. But saying that people who have experienced loss will have a different perspective is a meaningless statement. Of course they probably will. They are emotionally involved. I was in a horrible car accident once and for years didn't feel comfortable in cars. That doesn't mean people shouldn't own cars. It means I was unable to divorce rational thought from my emotional fears.

You still seem to be offering two conflicting views on firearms defense. You don't approve of their ownership or use, yet you would use them in your own defense, yet that doesn't change your beliefs.

Ok.


-Rob


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 5, 2009)

Do I believe in guns? Let me think....YES!!
I believe in my right to bear arms. I do not believe that guns kill or hurt people, just as a car doesn't kill or hurt anyone. I do believe that it is the uneducated idiot who is responsible for that.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 5, 2009)

just2kicku said:


> Do I believe in guns? Let me think....YES!!
> I believe in my right to bear arms. I do not believe that guns kill or hurt people, just as a car doesn't kill or hurt anyone. I do believe that it is the uneducated idiot who is responsible for that.


But if that uneducated idiot never has the possibility to have or own a firearm then maybe a life of two would be saved. 



Thesemindz said:


> Our cultures certainly are different. But saying that people who have experienced loss will have a different perspective is a meaningless statement. Of course they probably will. They are emotionally involved. I was in a horrible car accident once and for years didn't feel comfortable in cars. That doesn't mean people shouldn't own cars. It means I was unable to divorce rational thought from my emotional fears.
> 
> You still seem to be offering two conflicting views on firearms defense. You don't approve of their ownership or use, yet you would use them in your own defense, yet that doesn't change your beliefs.
> 
> ...



A car is not meant for killing and I am sorry to hear about your accident, but a car is not meant for killing whereas a gun is.
And my position is not conflicting I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I do not believe in the use of firearms.  I respect your decision to use them, but unless there is a mitigating circumstance that I have already mentioned I would not use one


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 5, 2009)

I forget who it was but a member here had a quote in their signature that was a nice twist on the "guns don't kill people, people do" truism.  It's intent was something along the lines of "If guns kill people, does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling errors?".

I actually do agree that a gun *is* just a tool, neither inherently good or evil.  

However, it is a tool whose designed purpose is to inflict great injury at a distance, primarily on other humans.  Further, it is all too easy to become competent enough with one to inflict such injury.  With ready access to a firearm, a fit of temper can end in someones death because it is a lot 'easier' to point a pistol and pull the trigger than it is to assault someone physically - there is no time to come to your sense or calm down before the deed is done.

So altho' it is true that people kill people, a gun makes it one heck of a lot simpler and quicker.

Where do I stand on gun ownership, given that attitude?  

Oddly enough, I think that here in Great Britain we used to have it pretty close to 'right' with enough licensing and regulation to allow people to 'enjoy' firearms without the country becoming the Wild West.  

I used to be on my unversity rifle team, go hunting small game for the table and even tried my hand at pistol shooting (I was terrible at that by the way ).  Then we had a few high profile tragedies with firearms and the knee-jerk legislation jerked the guns right out of our hands.  Well, that's not quite fair and *Tez* can tell you pretty clearly how the laws stand these days, better than I can anyhow.  

All that I know is that many of my friends had to turn in their gun collections and I can't find a rifle club anywhere and the British Olympic shooting team has to train in Switzerland because they can't train here.

I'd like things to go back to the way they were with, as others have pointed out i this thread, sensible regulation of who can own what and under what conditions that ownership can continue.


----------



## thardey (Feb 5, 2009)

Do I _believe_ in guns? No, I believe in God. That is, me personally, I look to God for guidance, protection, etc. 

There are some who replace their gods or whatever religious/non-religous object of worship with guns. That is, they look to guns for protection, well-being, self-worth and such. 

Guns are simply a means to an end. They are a tool designed to violently put holes in things. They are designed to cause damage with the minimal amount of effort.

To me, guns are a natural extention of the Martial Art. They are not "THE" extention of martial arts. They're part of a continuum. Some people are only comfortable with grappling arts. Some with non-striking arts. Some with striking arts. Some with arts with "force-multipliers" like bo, cane, or escrima. Some with bladed arts, like knife and sword. Some with slow-fire target shooting. Some with combat-oriented pistols. Some with combat-oriented rifles and shotguns. And by no means is the continuum done there.

It is up to each and every one of us to evaluate our own ablilites, needs, culture, situations, and laws to determine where on that continuum is appropriate for ourselves. It is only after a long, hard look at my own situation that I decided that it was a good thing for me to carry daily. It is certainly not a forgone conclusion for everybody else. I also continue to re-evaluate whether it is appropriate for me to continue carrying. I had to come to that decision based on my own system of decision-making, which is by no means universal.

I have also talked with local law enforcement, and all of them have encouraged me to remain armed. At least keeping it in my truck, loaded. Most of them encouraged me to carry on my person daily. That's specific to my situation.

But, I do believe in the _right_ to own and carry guns. That is, just as I don't have to right to force others to protect me using guns, I also don't have the right to not allow someone else to protect themselves using guns. And if the US seems militant about that right, it is because we are taught that that right is "self-evident" that the right to appropriately protect ourselves is a basic human right, not a government-granted right.

However, the exact application of that right is vague. It does not only refer to carring concealed pistols, whether the "tactical model" or not. It also included the question of shotguns, rifles, knives, swords, and more. The constitution was not written specifially to allow me to carry a 13-round Glock .45 conclealed with hollow-point bullets. It was written to ensure that I keep the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." There are also people who are not allowed to own guns, based on previous convictions, and I'm okay with that. 

And, to be fair, fully-automatic guns, and silencers are available in certain states, but they require a special license, and permission from the Sheriff. (Called a "Class III" license.) The tax on the license is enormous, though. Someone like me could apply for and probably receive permission. But I have no desire for an "assault weapon." Even though I often shoot an AR-15, I do not consider it an "assault weapon" any more than I consider my stock Glock an "assault pistol."


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 5, 2009)

I live in Miami of course we belive in guns and knives and 3 on 1.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 5, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> A car is not meant for killing and I am sorry to hear about your accident, but a car is not meant for killing whereas a gun is.
> And my position is not conflicting I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that I do not believe in the use of firearms. I respect your decision to use them, but unless there is a mitigating circumstance that I have already mentioned I would not use one


 
Alright. You don't see that as a contradtiction. Fine. 

You say that you would only use a firearm to defend yourself if there were "mitigating circumstances." When do you think the rest of us would use one? When someone took our parking space? When someone stepped on our foot at the school dance?

Come on. Of course no responsible person would use one unless there were serious mitigating circumstances. Your continued use of that caveat implies that no one else could be responsible enough to make that determination. 

Fine. I'm not going to convince you, I knew that going in. And you clearly don't even see a contradiction in your position. Alright. I will continue to choose to keep my options open with regards to defending myself with firearms. You will continue not to. Unless there are mitigating circumstances.


-Rob


----------



## just2kicku (Feb 5, 2009)

mozzandherb said:


> But if that uneducated idiot never has the possibility to have or own a firearm then maybe a life of two would be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like it or not, the bad seed will always get them somehow. Full auto guns are illegal (at least where I live) yet the criminal always finds a way to get them. So now no law abiding citizen can have a gun but that does not stop "idiot" from getting one. The life that gets saved might be my own and family.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 5, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I forget who it was but a member here had a quote in their signature that was a nice twist on the "guns don't kill people, people do" truism. It's intent was something along the lines of "If guns kill people, does that mean I can blame my pencil for spelling errors?".
> 
> I actually do agree that a gun *is* just a tool, neither inherently good or evil.
> 
> ...


 

We have several clubs that use the military ranges up here, it might be worth seeing if there's any near you. I know many shooters including rifles use the military facilities. 
I don't know why the Olympic team would have to use facilities in another country we have plenty here including Bisley.
http://www.nsc-bisley.co.uk/

I think giving up weapon collections was a bit of a panic move tbh as you can get a licence for rifles as well as shotguns. Bit of a fuff around but you can licence all your weapons.
http://www.nra.org.uk/


The thing is while I agree it was a knee jerk reaction to what people wanted after those events, and it may well be a mistake, it was what people wanted. The government was besieged by petitions and campaigns to ban guns...so they did. 
It may well be a mistake but those who think it's our government trying to oppress us and we are behaving like sheep should realise that the government responded to what people were clamouring for at the time. Perhaps the government is at fault for listening to people!


----------



## JadeDragon3 (Feb 5, 2009)

I believe you have the right to defend yourself as the great Malcolm X said "by any means neccessary".  I think that you should be able to defend your self with whatever you have around wheather that be a gun, a knife, or a sword, etc.... Especially if its in your home.  A man's home is his castle.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It may well be a mistake but those who think it's our government trying to oppress us and we are behaving like sheep should realise that the government responded to what people were clamouring for at the time. Perhaps the government is at fault for listening to people!


 
Thanks for the information and links, *Tez* :tup:.

Also, your last there is a valid point that probably doesn't get as much weight as it should.  I do fear, however, that altho' the outcome might seem as if it was by public demand, that there was a good deal of 'perception management' indulged in to generate the prime conditions to get the law the powers that be desired.

That might be a little paranoid but it's something that the government (of whatever colour) does all the time.


----------



## mozzandherb (Feb 5, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Alright. You don't see that as a contradtiction. Fine.
> 
> You say that you would only use a firearm to defend yourself if there were "mitigating circumstances." When do you think the rest of us would use one? When someone took our parking space? When someone stepped on our foot at the school dance?
> 
> ...


 It was never my intentions to impose me beliefs on anybody, or for that matter to have my views changed,  I was just defending the OP of my view of guns.


----------



## tellner (Feb 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not being funny here but the ownership of weapons will not stop a dictatorship or a government being oppressive..


 
QFT, Tez. The Taliban was about as oppressive a government as you will find outside of North Korea and other portions of Hell with the fire put out. Afghanistan is swimming in guns. Same with Somalia. Same with Congo. Same with any number of other nasty places. Guns are mostly illegal in Russia and similar places with repressive governments. Lots of good people get them anyway. It doesn't do anything

A bit closer to home George Bush shredded the Constitution, took a dump on the Bill of Rights and wiped His butt with the Rule of Law. And that was before "The Commander Guy" got serious about declaring Congress - and I quote - a "subordinate branch of government" and declared that He could "crush the testicles of a ten year old child" in order to get His prisoners to talk. The psychos and sycophants who worshipped the Decider are among the most heavily armed civilians in America. Their guns didn't do diddly to stop tyranny.

That's because guns are just extensions of the will. If the brain doesn't point them in the right direction they don't do any good. Sure, if you have to kill someone they make it easier. And "the tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." But they are just means. What's important is ends and the will to carry reach them. Small arms haven't done much of anything to stoip the US Army and Marine Corps in Iraq. When lightly armed individual and militias come up against a modern military they die pretty quickly. So they find other more effective means like IEDs.

The Czechs and the Hungarians fought the Soviets and lost. Running around with popguns didn't get them their countries back. It was fundamental changes in political will that put people like Walensa and Havel in power. The Soviet Union fell when the Army collectively said "Enough!" and stopped obeying orders. 

I'm not running down force as a tool of politics. But it's only a tool. More often than not it's the wrong one. And it only works if people have the will, the organization, the smarts and the mental toughness to use it effectively.

What would happen if the American People with all their small arms rose up and tried to throw down the government? Unless other things had changed very drastically the Glorious Revolution would never get off the ground. The cells would be infiltrated. Communications would be monitored. Most of the really dangerous leaders would be rounded up. The media campaign would completely discredit them. Almost everyone would be convinced that they were losers and lunatics. A few televised funerals of "good cops gunned down by domestic terrorists" would cut it off at its knees. One IED in Oklahoma City effectively destroyed the nascent Militia Movement.


----------



## tellner (Feb 5, 2009)

Mark L said:


> I'm picking up my concealed carry permit later today (in Massachusetts, not really easy to get at all). I will be purchasing a pistol soon, after which I will practice with it alot. After becoming familiar and comfortable with the tool, maybe, I'll learn how to incorporate it into my martial art. I think that will be harder with a pistol than with other weapons in my toolbox.
> 
> Actually carrying a firearm as part of my routine isn't something I can envision, but keeping it at the ready in my home is.


 
Mark, if I can make a suggestion, save up your pennies and get some good training. Some of the best training in the world can be found close at hand in New Hampshire. LFI will not only teach you how to shoot and how to use your firearm for self defense. It will also teach you when to shoot, when not to shoot and help you deal with the after effects of a lethal force situation. There are other excellent facilities out there. Mr. Ayoob's happens to be one with which I have personal experience. 

There are good courses in firearms retention and disarming. I'd really recommend taking at least one of those. A firearm changes just about everything about how you fight. 

I'm not a Krav Maga practitioner, but I have a great deal of respect for the way I've seen advanced Krav people, mostly former or active IDF soldiers - dunno about what you find at the regular schools, integrate their gun work with their empty hand tactics.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 5, 2009)

One other thing I would like to point out.

"Tyrrany" doesn't always come in the form of a _Government_.  IMO Tyrrany can be the street gang operating in the park down the street, that the law has not been able to do anything about who harrass women who walk by, beat people and take their money, and drive by and shoot at each other while children are at play.

At some point, being an armed citizen, if they come to injure you, rape you, or kill you, you can stand by and dial 911 and do some of that praying people are so opposed to, or you can fight back.  For the latter, The gun is a great equalizer in the hands of someone who knows how it is used.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 5, 2009)

Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?

I am at a loss to point to exactly where things went wrong but over here in England's Green and Pleasant Land, the rule of law actually worked for a time in the last century. In the big cities, it is true, the criminal gangs still operated and those at the top of them did much as they liked but it was to each other rather than to the population at large.

Now things are starting to feel as if they are falling apart, with hostility and degradation of the values we used to hold at every turn. Why is that? I most assuredly do not want to live in a society where my only choices are the rule of the mob, might-makes-right or tyrannical oppression (secular or religious).

We have more and more laws and more and more coppers, who largely seem to be engaged in harassing motorists and doing paperwork to prove they're doing something constructive. Why then are things worse for the ordinary person?

In part it is because the criminal or would-be criminal classes have learned that there is no meaningful consequence for their actions, certainly not in comparison to what they have cumulatively done to their victims. 

However, we used to run things with a much more draconian slant than we do now and there was still crime. It is tempting to introduce the death penalty for many offenses for it certainly prevents an offender from offending again. But is it really a deterent?

Similarly, getting round to the point at long last {}, does an armed citizenry really deter? Or does it just mean that the criminals make sure they are better armed and better prepared than their victims?


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 5, 2009)

I do not believe that I need to have one.  I do not feel unsafe without one.

I respect the right to be armed in the US.  However, I also believe that most of the people who choose to be armed don't really need to be.  I believe that for most of these people, it is extremely unlikely that they will ever need to use a gun to defend themselves or a loved one.

If you choose to be armed, just be responsible and clear-headed about it.


----------



## Guardian (Feb 5, 2009)

Well, considering I'm retired Military and was a Cop in he military and believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, I believe in the right to defend myself and if that defense should prove to be violent to anyone trying to do me harm or my family/friends, then so be it and once they cross the line, they forfeit the right to pursue the same rights as me and thus forfeit their rights.

I believe everyone should have their own view/opinion and live their life like they want or believe in what they want.  I choose to live and if that means protecting what I have or love, sorry, it's my view and my right.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 5, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?




Has there really EVER been such a time?

Some people state that we live in a far less violent society than at any point in history.


----------



## searcher (Feb 5, 2009)

Sukerin-I think it would be fabulous to not HAVE to carry all of the time, but at no time in history has it ever been this way.   If you take away firearms, then someon is going to get a club, knife, sword, etc. and make use of it in placeof a firearm.   The advantage of having a firearm on your person is that it levels the playing field.   I know manyof us have had the dream of taking out an armed group or even one person with our wonderful martial skill, but it is not reality.


And Tellner is right on saving up the money andgetting some good training.   For all of you considering carrying a firearm or even the purchase of a firearm, get some quality training from a reputable instructor.   The NRA ia a great place to contact for information on instructors in your area.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin, the reason the police have so much paperwork to do is a direct result of government directives not a result of the police deciding to annoy motorists. The perception is that the police are doing nothing but in fact the police are working their socks off trying to cope with being police officers and keep the government happy, if they don't, funding is stopped. It's as simple as that.

Take 'stop and search', the law says a police officer can stop and search anyone considred suspicious, a drug dealer, a gang member carrying weapons etc however everytime you stop and search you have to go through a form with the person being searched, this will take at least half an hour with a sober co-operative suspect, much much longer if they are doped or bolshy which most times they are. 

If you watch the 'Nightwatch' programmes in ITV, 'Soho Blues' on Five etc you will see how much aggravation police actual get and how they are trying to do their jobs. On the Soho programme a Sgt. picked up someone who was drunk and violent, he put him in the van where the guy started bashing his head against the van wall, that Sgt, had to spend an hour filling out a report to say how those injuries were caused just in case he was accused of causing them. 

Forms have to be filled in everytime someone is arrested, it take more time to fill them in than deal with many incidents. On a drunken Saturday night this is mountains of paperwork. On those drunken nights out the police have to deal with people fighting, being sick, being comatose, people spitting at them, abusing them and throwing bottle, punches and anything they can find at them. This is where the policing is tied up, we don't actually have more police here, the government is actually recruting more CSOs they are cheaper but of course carry no policing powers nor are they trained as police officers.

The perception is perhaps that police are harrassing drivers but it's not true, however with the influx of immigrants, legal or otherwise, who come from a different culture there has been an enormous rise in drunk driving especially down south. The Eastern European countries have a different mindset about driving when drunk, they also have a different mindset when it comes to crime, it's a good way to make a living as far as they are concerned. I know one police force that is stretched to it's limit because of this. 

Gang crime is a problem, to a certain extent it always has been but over the past few years it seems to have come to peoples attention more and more and they are demanding action. What action they don't know but 'the police must do something'. Parents surely are the first line here, stop your children getting involved in the first place but no it's the police forces that are to blame for rising crime.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Thanks for the information and links, *Tez* :tup:.
> 
> Also, your last there is a valid point that probably doesn't get as much weight as it should. I do fear, however, that altho' the outcome might seem as if it was by public demand, that there was a good deal of 'perception management' indulged in to generate the prime conditions to get the law the powers that be desired.
> 
> That might be a little paranoid but it's something that the government (of whatever colour) does all the time.


 

This is true enough but I'm anxious that non Brits don't get the idea that we *all *had guns and had them taken away from us by the government, which is what some posters seem to think happened. We've never been into the gun thing the way America has, it's never been an election issue nor have we had the 'right to arms' lobby that America has. People still have legal weapons in this country, those that want them and have the patience to go through the checks and get a licence. The view of weapons in this country held by non Brits is skewed by their own experiences and beliefs.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 6, 2009)

i like my guns, i wish i had more.

i'll probably never have to shoot someone.  i'll probably never have to use my martial arts training either, for that matter.

i don't care if others have guns or not.  

jf


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst that is undoubtedly a valid point, would it not be better, rather than 'packing heat' to have a society where such things do not happen?


 

Mark, you know I love ya( in the completely hetero sense of course), and you have my respect and I have never read a post from you I didn't like, even if the views were not mine.

But, I do think in this case it is best to take the appropriate measures to deal with the society I have right now, rather than the one I never will( nor will anyone for as long as there are humans).


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

tellner said:


> Mark, if I can make a suggestion, save up your pennies and get some good training. Some of the best training in the world can be found close at hand in New Hampshire. LFI will not only teach you how to shoot and how to use your firearm for self defense. It will also teach you when to shoot, when not to shoot and help you deal with the after effects of a lethal force situation. There are other excellent facilities out there. Mr. Ayoob's happens to be one with which I have personal experience.
> 
> There are good courses in firearms retention and disarming. I'd really recommend taking at least one of those. A firearm changes just about everything about how you fight.
> 
> I'm not a Krav Maga practitioner, but I have a great deal of respect for the way I've seen advanced Krav people, mostly former or active IDF soldiers - dunno about what you find at the regular schools, integrate their gun work with their empty hand tactics.


 

Absolutely. I consider the right to bear arms sacred , BUT--never arm an untrained person.

I'm taking a few extra classes next month at the Smith and Wesson Academy myself, out in springfield MA. 

It'd do you some good too, be good to meet nother MTer 

I DO still stand by the fact that a person ( who otherwise has no criminal or mental health record such as necessitates removal of the right) should have the right to be armed, or the choice not to be but that's the point--It MUST remain ALWAYS the individual's choice, NEVER the government's.

BUT--once the choice is made you OWE it to your fellow citizens to take the training first so as to never endanger any of them, should you need to shoot.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Hagakure (Feb 6, 2009)

Well,

I think I've said my piece. I'm not convinced about arming the populace with firearms, if people wish to do it, fine by me, just something I'm not into. Also, ain't gonna change anyone's mind, although I've taken a few points away. Bowing out boyz n girlz. 

The right to arm bears... I mean, come ON... :mst:


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Sukerkin, the reason the police have so much paperwork to do is a direct result of government directives not a result of the police deciding to annoy motorists.


 
Aye, I didn't mean to imply otherwise as to the source of the paperwork. 

The 'harassing motorists' statement, however, I somewhat stand by. As another inevitable result of those nonsensical 'performance targets' set by the government, you are much more likely to be stopped as a motorist at certain times of the month when the 'numbers have to be balanced'. I'm not intended to imply that the police themselves are happy about this state of affairs, as I know from talking with some that they feel it to be a misuse of their resources.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I didn't mean to imply otherwise as to the source of the paperwork.
> 
> The 'harassing motorists' statement, however, I somewhat stand by. As another inevitable result of those nonsensical 'performance targets' set by the government, you are much more likely to be stopped as a motorist at certain times of the month when the 'numbers have to be balanced'. I'm not intended to imply that the police themselves are happy about this state of affairs, as I know from talking with some that they feel it to be a misuse of their resources.


 
The motorway police play motorway pool lol. Starting with red cars etc and finishing with a black one! We don't have anything to do with motorists except when cursing them when it's time for nuke moves (moving nuclear weapons up and down the country, happens a lot more than you want to think about)


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> This is true enough but I'm anxious that non Brits don't get the idea that we *all *had guns and had them taken away from us by the government, which is what some posters seem to think happened.


 

Very true.  The actual level of gun ownership was very low.  I perhaps saw more people with guns than most did because I'm from a country town, worked on a farm, hunted and target shot.

I do miss being able to go to a gun shop for a browse tho' .


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 6, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Mark, you know I love ya( in the completely hetero sense of course), and you have my respect and I have never read a post from you I didn't like, even if the views were not mine.


 
Thank you, kind sir and likewise :rei:.



Andy Moynihan said:


> But, I do think in this case it is best to take the appropriate measures to deal with the society I have right now, rather than the one I never will( nor will anyone for as long as there are humans).


 
I don't dispute that in the slightest.  It was perhaps a somewhat 'pie in the sky' statement for me to make.  I do think tho' that, by focussing only on the present perceived need to go armed, other alternative approaches can never be considered.  It's like being in a state of constant crisis and taking the expeditious measures to deal with the consequences but never getting around to dealing with the causes.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Very true. The actual level of gun ownership was very low. I perhaps saw more people with guns than most did because I'm from a country town, worked on a farm, hunted and target shot.
> 
> I do miss being able to go to a gun shop for a browse tho' .


 
You are going to have to visit up north lol! We have several gunshops, there's one in Richmond, Northallerton, and Leyburn. There's also a very good one in York. Mind I suppose we are 'shooting' country, there's plenty of shotguns for the small game and rifles for the deer (though here you are just as liable to run one of the buggers down... don't half damage your car though!) Pistols etc wouldn't sell here even if they were legal, country folk got no use for them lol!
This is my local shop just down the road.
http://www.gilsansports.com/products.asp?search_id=83


----------



## Hagakure (Feb 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The motorway police play motorway pool lol. Starting with red cars etc and finishing with a black one! We don't have anything to do with motorists except when cursing them when it's time for nuke moves (moving nuclear weapons up and down the country, happens a lot more than you want to think about)


 
Umm, I'd say all Police will from time to time. I know this, because an ex of mine was a copper, and she told me herself. Never own a pink car is all I'll say... You heard it here first.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2009)

Hagakure said:


> Umm, I'd say all Police will from time to time. I know this, because an ex of mine was a copper, and she told me herself. *Never own a pink car is all I'll say*... You heard it here first.


 
Well you deserve everything you get if you do lol! Up the road from me there's a Ford Ka in 'Lady Penelope pink".


----------



## Hagakure (Feb 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well you deserve everything you get if you do lol! Up the road from me there's a Ford Ka in 'Lady Penelope pink".


 
Oh absolutely, pink car? *shudders*. I'd rather eat my own face.


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."
> 
> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> 
> ...




Well I would like to begin with saying, I am from New Jersey so I have probably been socialized differently than you. I also want to say I am a criminal justice major and am looking to become a law enforcement agent but am also considering becoming attorney defending or prosecuting. I go both ways on these issues. I am only 20.


I completely agree you should have the right to defend yourself. Here is my conundrum with guns. Do you think all law enforcement agents know how to use their force properly? Clearly, many of them do not get into these incidents unless they are in bad urban areas. But you could think of many incidents where the officer did not obey "only if your life is in serious danger or a third party." If professionals in this matter sometimes may use excessive force to lethal, than what of regular civilians? I'm just referencing that obviously there would have to be a even higher risk chance here. 

Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves. 

But I will say, if your life is actually in lethal danger, you have every right to instantly take the life of your attacker. BUT, only in that condition. If there were strict policies and contracts signed that people would have to oblige to without a doubt, to ensure they could handle a gun and would take all liability for when they mishandle a gun; then so be it. 

Otherwise, just stick with a knife and learn how to use it. As they say, from 15 feet a trained knife fighter will most likely take the life of a gun wielder (given he has to remove his gun from a holster or whatever have it.) 25 feet and they both will exchange even deadly blows. And knives are ridden of all these accidents guns carry. (for the most part)




Now lastly, I"ve taken some sociological courses and I ask, 
"Do you think people are naturally bad?"  Do you think they come born bad, or do you think they are socialized by some third party to be that way? Most likely, a person who commits a crime has had a much worse upbringing or a psychological disorder (schizophrenia, dementia, etc.) So although I am not negating people have free will and they should obey the laws of nature, I am just saying why would you want to kill someone unless _you have to?_ And as aforementioned, have to would be you are in serious danger.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves.


 
Statistics show that children who eat hot dogs have a tendency to choke on them. 

As for the original post, I don't know if I "believe" in guns, but I have them, and I use them. 

I carry a concealed Ruger P97 .45 caliber eight-shot semi-automatic handgun almost everywhere I go, though Rita and I have taken to carrying Glock 29 10mms in the field because theyre easier to bicycle with and will take out a black bear-consequently, I find myself carrying the Glock more and more. We keep a shotgun or two in our  homes  all within easy reach. They all hold bullets or shells designed to kill or _shred_ a violent criminal-or a bear- instantaneously, before he can take another step or move his hand another inch. I won't even go into the rifles.I don't keep gun locks on these weapons, and I don't apologize for them, and it's not just because it is my" Constitutional" right to keep guns, although that is reason enough. It is because I have been convinced by overwhelming evidence that guns keep me and my family safe. 

Does that sound like the rantings of a paranoid, gun-toting nut? Probably, if you are a paranoid, gun-grabbing ignoramus who knows nothing about guns and the role they play daily in American society in the prevention of crime. To those of you who do know the relationship of gun and crime statistics, the weapons I keep probably make a lot of sense. 

We who own guns for self protection have been much maligned by those who think guns are evil, even though the statistics about gun use show that guns are used far more often by average citizens to prevent violent crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The evidence is greater than ever, thanks to the largest and most accurate study ever undertaken. It was performed by John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School who had never owned a gun and who had spent most of his career doing research on nongun-related issues. The study's findings are contained in his scholarly 1998 book,_ More Guns, Less Crime _(University of Chicago Press), which is a detailed analysis of 18 years of the gun/crime relationship in all 3,000-plus counties in the United States. 

After Lott finished the study, he went out and bought his first gun. 

Here are a few of the things he found, much of which will sound like plain common sense to us gun owners: 

 In counties that have "right-to-carry" laws or "shall issue" permits, that is, where a citizen must be issued a gun permit after meeting certain criteria, usually a background check and having taken a gun safety course, violent crime goes down dramatically while it goes up in surrounding counties that issue permits only at the discretion of the relevant law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the crime rate continues to go down year after year due to the increasing deterrence of more people getting the "shall issue" permits. 

 Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets. 


 Resistance with a gun, rather than passive resistance, is the safest option for the private citizen when confronted by a criminal. For a woman, especially, it is the best option, increasing her chances of not being injured by two and a half times. 

 The biggest drops in violent crime occurred in urban areas, especially in poor neighborhoods, and among women and the elderly, who are most vulnerable. 

When his study was released, Lott was instantly attacked by the likes of New York Senator Charles Schumer and other anti-gun advocates as being a stooge of the gun industry, which he is not. The mass media briefly mentioned his book, then ignored it much like they have ignored the 2,000,000 annual instances in which guns are used to prevent crime while heavily reporting the under 20 instances of young children being killed by guns. 

What are we to conclude from this study, especially in the wake of the mass shootings at some of the nation's schools, such as at Columbine High School? If it is clear that guns save lives far more often than they take them, what happened at Columbine? May I be so crass and insensitive to suggest that some of the teachers-or security guards- should have been armed? In a country like Israel where they fear attacks by madmen and terrorists, the teachers carry guns into the classroom and they consequently have no gun attacks on their students. Here in the United States, we have a federal law that bans guns from within 1000 feet of schools, even sometimes posting signs outside the school announcing to the world and to the nuts it is a "gun free zone." Do you think there may be an analogy here, that perhaps Israel's policy works and ours doesn't? 

In the counties mentioned in Lott's study, where "shall issue" laws are in effect violent crime goes down, while it goes up in the surrounding counties where there are no "shall issue" laws. Do you think there may be a connection there too? Do you suppose that violent criminals and nuts may be figuring out where the easy prey are? 

We who realize the value of guns have been very silent in the face of the all-out war on gun ownership that is currently being waged by certain politicians and the mass media. Yet the evidence clearly shows that gun possession and "shall issue" laws save lives. Isn't it time we stopped apologizing for our guns and spoke up? 


Anti-gun groups, politicians, and the mass media regularly hide incidents and studies that portray guns favorably, and they spare no ink to tell the rare story when guns are used by criminals or by accident. Then they pass stupid laws that endanger our children. We who know the truth about guns need to let that truth be known: *Guns save lives and prevent criminal attacks.* They protect our families from harm, not expose them to danger.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves.


 
I wanted to address this seperately. 

Of course people who carry guns shoot themselves more than people who don't. That's like saying people who skydive are more likely to get into a skydiving accident than those who don't, or people who eat cookies are more likely to choke on a cookie than those who don't. It's a meaningless statement and a meaningless statistic.


-Rob


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 6, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Statistics show that children who eat hot dogs have a tendency to choke on them.
> 
> As for the original post, I don't know if I "believe" in guns, but I have them, and I use them.
> 
> ...



Very interesting article. Pretty ridiculous the media squashed it. Some things remain in question though. I know you mention it was published in the Chicago Press but that does not assume the study was done anywhere near Chicago. If it was done in a urban area then that is great stuff. But if it wasn't done there, that really gives no idea as to how it would translate into more urban areas like New York. Nor does the effectiveness of gun ownership in Israel give a clear indication on the what would happen in the United States. That is on par with assuming Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana laws would be as acutely impacting as it is there, as it would be here. The United States has much more diverse cultures of people unlike any countries of its caliber. Regardless, great post.

edit: 
except a person who carries a gun  I would bet has a much higher chance of shooting him/her self than choking and dying on a hot dog.  You cannot compare bullets to hot dogs. Although parachuting is a excellent point. I never said it is a full frontal reason as to why guns should not be allowed, but it does hold itself down as a auxiliary reason.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> I completely agree you should have the right to defend yourself. Here is my conundrum with guns. Do you think all law enforcement agents know how to use their force properly? Clearly, many of them do not get into these incidents unless they are in bad urban areas. But you could think of many incidents where the officer did not obey "only if your life is in serious danger or a third party." If professionals in this matter sometimes may use excessive force to lethal, than what of regular civilians? I'm just referencing that obviously there would have to be a even higher risk chance here.
> 
> Otherwise, just stick with a knife and learn how to use it. As they say, from 15 feet a trained knife fighter will most likely take the life of a gun wielder (given he has to remove his gun from a holster or whatever have it.) 25 feet and they both will exchange even deadly blows. And knives are ridden of all these accidents guns carry. (for the most part)
> 
> ...


 

I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are profesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.

My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.

As to your comment that people should just "stick with a knife," the whole point of firearms as a tool for self defense is that they require little physical ability and only minimal training to use effectively. I'm not saying people shouldn't be trained, I think they should, I'm saying that a soccer mom can take a 12 hour CCW course and be a relatively responsible gun owner capable of defending herself if need be. Try learning how to use a knife against a commited violent attacker within 12 hours. 

Additionally, while a gun is capable of doing massive amounts of damage to an attacker within a matter of seconds, even successfully defending yourself with a knife may take a great deal longer. Unless you are able to strike your opponent in a vital area, it may take minutes for him to bleed out while he is able to continue to attempt to disarm, disable, or murder you. 

And what of those of us who are unable to draw a knife and cover 25 feet in a matter of seconds? What about the elderly, or the disabled, or the infirm? Should they also be denied the basic right of self defense on the grounds that guns in the hands of evil men are capable of assisting them in their evil deeds? Will we forever be constrained by projecting our fear of evil onto the innocent?

If a person has the right to do lethal damage in self defense, why would you force them to close within grappling range with their attacker before allowing them to exercise that right?

As to your last paragraph, I'm glad you've "taken some sociological courses." Now, I have a question for you. You seem to imply that those of us who advocate for defensive firearms use _*want to kill people*. _Besides the fact that that is patently offensive, it begs the question you already asked. Do _*you*_ think _*we're*_ naturally bad people? 

The whole point of self defense is to be able to protect myself and my loved ones from the people who _*do want to kill people*. _The circumstances of their derangement are unimportant when they are attempting to murder your child or rape your wife. I don't give a damn if they had a rough childhood, or are poor, or have a drug addiction when _*they are pointing a gun at me*. _All that matters in that moment is _*whether or not I survive*_.

It isn't a matter of wild west. It isn't a matter of wanting to kill people. It isn't a matter of fetishizing guns. It is a matter of life or death.

Otherwise, the firearm wouldn't have entered the situation in the first place.


-Rob


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are proffesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.
> 
> My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly.

Some folks just can't, or just won't, get it.

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I&#8217;m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I&#8217;m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I&#8217;m angry. I carry a gun so that I don&#8217;t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, surrounded by my loved ones, not alone , in pain and bleeding out on a dirty sidewalk somewhere some afternoon.


I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I need it to make me "feel like a man". I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love, and do everything they can to this end.( Ditto women).

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I AM inadequate, no matter what the chop suey movies say.

I don&#8217;t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> Very interesting article. Pretty ridiculous the media squashed it. Some things remain in question though. I know you mention it was published in the Chicago Press but that does not assume the study was done anywhere near Chicago. If it was done in a urban area then that is great stuff. But if it wasn't done there, that really gives no idea as to how it would translate into more urban areas like New York.
> .


 
_More Guns, Less Crime_ is a statistical analysis of [*every county in the U.S.* over a period of _eighteen years,_ from 1997 to 1994. You can read more about it, and the various studies supporting and rebutting it  here.

I'd also add that you might be especially interested in Lott's other gin and gun control book, The Bias Against Guns, wherein he suggests that psychological bias prevents people from accepting the results of his study,_More Guns, Less Crime_ :lol:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Thank you, kind sir and likewise :rei:.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dispute that in the slightest. It was perhaps a somewhat 'pie in the sky' statement for me to make. I do think tho' that, by focussing only on the present perceived need to go armed, other alternative approaches can never be considered. It's like being in a state of constant crisis and taking the expeditious measures to deal with the consequences but never getting around to dealing with the causes.


 
And here, I think, is another piece of the puzzle:

There seems to be a belief or assumption, both from outside of America, and from those Americans who do not *U*nderstand *T*he *P*roblem, that the wish to carry must necessarily be predicated on "need".

I don't "need" a seatbelt. But I wear one anyway because it's a good idea since, after all,  one never knows what sort of people are out there, or when a collision may occur( "accident" implies there's no one to blame).

I don't "need" a fire extinguisher, but have several( and THEY'RE "loaded")  because it's a good idea since, after all, one never knows what sort of people are out there, or when carelessness or accident could set a fire going.

I don't "need" to carry when I leave the house, but generally do anyway because it's a good idea since, after all, one never knows what sort of people are out there, and by now only a brain dead mosquito hasn't got the point. 

You don't carry because of problems you can predict. If I *know* there's to be a gunfight at the OK Corral at high noon, and that I'll need to bring my guns to survive it, come high noon I'll be in the brothel across town, indoors, behind cover and having a GOOD time instead of a terrifying one.

You carry for the problems you *can't* predict.


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> *1.) *I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are profesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.
> 
> My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.
> 
> ...



1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently. I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the _average_ civilian.

2.) Valid point, that does turn my knife argument moot, if and only if, this more guns,less crime study is valid. 

3.) You misunderstood me. I was suggesting that a person who is not familiar on sociology might be quick to assume people who commit crime are bad and that is it. I was hastening up the possibility that this might crop up and clearing out that perspective essentially. I have met very few people who have not taken sociological courses and have shared a more open minded view on the issue. Not to mention, I put emphasis on the use of force  being circumstantial. If someone is raping your wife, that is a gray area. How did that happen? Did he start out with a gun? A gun would deem deadly therefore, deadly force would be applicable. Once again, the same thought that inadvertently came out of Tennesse V. Gardner should apply to civilians, only if your life is in danger or a third party. 



elder999 said:


> _More Guns, Less Crime_ is a statistical analysis of [*every county in the U.S.* over a period of _eighteen years,_ from 1997 to 1994. You can read more about it, and the various studies supporting and rebutting it  here.
> 
> I'd also add that you might be especially interested in Lott's other gin and gun control book, The Bias Against Guns, wherein he suggests that psychological bias prevents people from accepting the results of his study,_More Guns, Less Crime_ :lol:



I appreciate you defending him. But the _way_ you defend him suggests you are accepting everything that study says as true. I would be certain I could find studies done that support the use of gun ownership causing even more trouble. I'm sure you understand the nature of experiments and to understand how quickly results can become biased or false, and why it is important to see everything with a critical eye. Perhaps the media had good reason to invalidate this study or perhaps not. I will definitely take the time to read these soon enough.



Additionally, I never stated I was for or against. The OP asked for supporting points against, not for. Although the article completely supported what I had already stated. People should be well trained if civilians should carry guns.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 6, 2009)

I honestly do take and understand the point, *Andy*.  I am not an advocate of fearfully disarming every law abiding citizen just in case they hurt someone or themselves.

However, I wasn't speaking necessarily at an individual level in the post quoted above; it is a principle that can apply at any scale from one person to a whole society.  It's a phenomenon I've often termed 'solution induced blindness' in my work i.e. you come up with a response to a problem that sort of works fairly well and fixate upon that such that you stop exploring other avenues.

It can be argued that, if you've got a solution, then what do you want another one for?  Which is a fair enough point.  But the point I was trying to make is that accepting that gun ownership is an answer to the problem of violent crime should not be allowed to stop us looking for a better one.

It's true that a paradigm which works very well in science and technology (build a better mouse trap) is not so easily applied sociologically but I don't think we'll ever know if we can 'evolve', as social creatures, beyond the use of violence to achieve goals if we never look.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I honestly do take and understand the point, *Andy*. I am not an advocate of fearfully disarming every law abiding citizen just in case they hurt someone or themselves.
> 
> However, I wasn't speaking necessarily at an individual level in the post quoted above; it is a principle that can apply at any scale from one person to a whole society. It's a phenomenon I've often termed 'solution induced blindness' in my work i.e. you come up with a response to a problem that sort of works fairly well and fixate upon that such that you stop exploring other avenues.
> 
> ...


 
Well it's more simple than you think: All we would need to do is just all agree to love cats.

On a more serious note, I understand what you're saying, but I guess the whole "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" versus "how will we become a better species if we don't try" is just gonna boil down to the difference in our worldviews.

*You* would like to believe we live in the best of all possible situations, and *I'm* afraid you're probably right.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> 1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently. I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the _average_ civilian.


 
Do you mean average "civilian", period, or average civilian "shooter"?

If the former, yes.

If the latter, I would say my own range experiences would tend to show the reverse is true--An average police officer may not be "into" guns, may never fire his/her duty weapon more then the required twice-yearly ( at least around here) Q-course.

But it has been my experience that civilians serious enough about training to get their carry permits tend , from the beginning, to *already* be recreational shooters, and thus fans of putting in their "trigger time".

As an example, my range lets the town police dept. train for free, no membership required. Yet during one week where I was shooting every day, I saw 4 or 5 of the same fellow carry permit holders there practicing, and saw only one cop. On one day.

Gives you an "insider" perspective you may not have had, and of course, other depts. may vary and those on special/tactical teams will have requirements seperate from general patrol.


.





> People should be well trained if civilians should carry guns.


 
On that we agree 110%


----------



## elder999 (Feb 6, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well it's more simple than you think: All we would need to do is just all agree to love cats.


 
Good Cat Haiku, #24

_Really, I *love* cats_
_it's just that I can never _
_finish a whole one._

(*I kill me!*Do we have an "Alf" smiley??)

Carry on....



Glycerine0160 said:


> I appreciate you defending him. But the _way_ you defend him suggests you are accepting everything that study says as true. I would be certain I could find studies done that support the use of gun ownership causing even more trouble. I'm sure you understand the nature of experiments and to understand how quickly results can become biased or false, and why it is important to see everything with a critical eye. Perhaps the media had good reason to invalidate this study or perhaps not. I will definitely take the time to read these soon enough.


 
Not defending him-I do agree with him. The raw data is available on his website, for all and sundry to draw their own conclusions, independent of the "nature of experiments."


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 6, 2009)

That's an important point, *Elder,* on any debate where people can have 'emotional' filters on the subject (and I don't exempt myself from that ). Drawing your own conclusions from the evidence is a vital part of having a 'view'.

Of course, the 'evidence' has to be worthy of the name and if there isn't any then we're on a sticky wicket from the start but weighing up the pro's and con's of a topic really should be a process that engages the mind with a degree of rigourousness - otherwise we're just taking everything on 'faith'.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:
			
		

> 1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions *where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently*. *I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the average civilian*.



How do YOU know that the average _citizen_ who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO?  I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip.  Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going).  This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
 I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 6, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> How do YOU know that the average _citizen_ who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO?  I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip.  Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going).  This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
> I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...



Oh, trust me. I am well aware of the many LEO's who cannot use their firearms well. That is why I brought it up. If they cannot, I would not expect citizens with guns to do any better. (given there is not rigorous training courses that are mandated) If there are these mandates, well then obviously that would lend itself to my point aforementioned in my previous input and would make this irrelevant.


----------



## sjansen (Feb 6, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> How do YOU know that the average _citizen_ who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO? I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip. Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going). This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
> I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...


 
The average citizen in the U.S. can't carry a gun legally. Those who do usually have to go through training to do so like you do in the martial arts. My wife had to go through 20 hours or more of training to be able to carry a gun in public. I had to go through less but was trained in the U.S. Marines as a machine gunner. I was trained in the use of personal firearms as every machine gunner at the time had to carry a pistol. My proficiency was tested before I was allowed to get a permit to carry a gun. Also, that proficiency is tested every time you renew your licence. 

People who are trained to use guns are not the ones who use them in crimes. Look at the statistics. They are less likely to be the victims in violent crimes. States that have a more lenient gun policy have a less violent crime rate. Look at states like New York and California who have higher gun violence and more stringent gun laws. Also, look at what happened to Australia when they started dumping guns in the ocean. Their violent crime rate exploded and citizens were left with noone to count on but the police.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> Oh, trust me. I am well aware of the many LEO's who cannot use their firearms well. That is why I brought it up. If they cannot, I would not expect citizens with guns to do any better. (given there is not rigorous training courses that are mandated) If there are these mandates, well then obviously that would lend itself to my point aforementioned in my previous input and would make this irrelevant.



The problem here is your assumption that most private citizens who choose to carry approach the issue with the same attitude as most LEOs.  While many CCW holders won't take professional training beyond what's required to obtain their permit, there are those that do.   In the classes I've attended, "regular dudes" outnumber the cops by a huge margin.  That said, even those who don't take formal training seem to practice more since, as another poster pointed out, they have used guns for recreation and sport prior to making the decision to carry for protection.  
I don't want to give the impression that I have a negative view of LEOs (and those on this board know that is not the case)...there are a lot of cops out there who _are_ professionals.  However, many of them are not.


----------



## searcher (Feb 6, 2009)

Andy and Tex beat me to the punch.


I regularly shoot with and train with LE guys.    Of the 1000's that I have shot with, most of them(LE guys) don't shoot all that great.   I hate to say it, but LE training does not make LE guys these wonderful marksman.    I talk to most of the local Sherrif's Dept and Police Dept. on a daily basis and most of them will tell you that they shoot less than 100 rounds per year.    In comparison, I shoot 750-1000 rounds in a weekend.   And that is almost every weekend.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> If someone is raping your wife, that is a gray area.


 

I would recommend you inform your girlfriend, wife, or significant other that you consider their rape a "gray area."

I, on the other hand, do not.


-Rob


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 6, 2009)

Thesemindz said:


> I would recommend you inform your girlfriend, wife, or significant other that you consider their rape a "gray area."
> 
> I, on the other hand, do not.
> 
> ...




I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital. 

Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.


----------



## Thesemindz (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.
> 
> Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.


 

I'll take my chances. Thanks for your concern.


-Rob


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 6, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. *But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole.* You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.
> 
> Example, *if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense*.


 
Dude, you are throwing out a lot of questionable statements without providing any evidence to back them up...

Can you show us any instances where using deadly force against someone who was actively trying to committ rape resulted in a conviction of the actor?  
Yes, our legal system is completely screwed up and criminals who should be executed are released after only a few years.  That does NOT mean that we are not allowed to use any and all means to protect ourselves.

Deadly force is justified to prevent death or serious physical harm...I'm sure the ladies on the forum will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd consider rape to be pretty ****ing serious.


----------



## Wishbone (Feb 7, 2009)

Glycerine0160 said:


> I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.
> 
> Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.



How about this example:

I come home from work.  I hear a scuffle coming from the bedroom.  I go in there and find my girlfriend naked, being raped by a guy just as big John Coffey from the Green Mile.  Only this one isn't really nice on the inside, he's a sick man imposing his will on my girlfriend.  Well, she didn't own any guns because she's a 4th degree black belt in martial arts, so obviously she would be able to defend herself against anyone.  Unfortunately, size is a factor in combat, and skills aren't going to overcome this attacker.  

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore.  I look around and see no weapon.  Well, this guy is bare handed, I better not use my firearm, I _might_ go to jail.  I go hands on with this guy, he incapacitates me, rapes my girlfriend while I watch.  Rapes me while she watches, kills us both.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore.  I look around and see no weapon.  Well, this guy is bare handed, I better not use my firearm.  I go hands on with him, he pulls out a knife and stabs me to death before finishing my girlfriend.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore.  I look around and see a gun.  However, with the time it took for me to see that gun I lost the element of surprise and he saw me.  As I start to draw my weapon he already has his pointed at me and shoots me.

Enter me, stage right.

 I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore.  I pull out my firearm and shoot, with fast well place shots that take him down immediately.

Enter me, stage right.

 I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore.  I pull out my firearm and shoot.  However, this guy is high on PCP and the initial shots do nothing. We have a fight as I continue to unload the magazine into him.  This fight can end with him still killing me, running off or other ways.

The reason I mention that last one is because all of us people who carry guns for self-defense realize that they do not dictate that we will win everytime.  Sometimes no matter what equalizer you have, the odds are too great against you.  You just have to hope that you've trained enough to overcome most and that the ones you can't you avoid through luck or knowing where not to go.

The other point, which I hope you realized on your own through those examples, is that you don't have the luxury of time to figure out if someone has a better or equal weapon on themselves.  In this thread you earlier advocated carrying a knife, because somehow you think that will be less likely to get you in trouble in front of a jury than a gun.  That is mistaken in scenarios when both are used for self-defense.  But everyone may be carrying a knife, and they are easily concealable, guns are easily concealable.  So when faced with an adversary who is trying to hurt you or take something from you, you do not have the time to think what kind of weapons they may or may not have.  You have split-seconds to get your mind past "Oh **** I'm in trouble" into "I'm walking away from this situation okay, and this guy may or may not".  

Regarding your sarcastic comment - good luck with that defense.  Remember that our juries are composed of our peers.  Those peers are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters.  Rape is just as heinous a crime as murder, depending on the circumstances of both, you can argue rape is more heinous.  I would like to think that my peers would not fault me for being a good, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who protected his family from a terrible fate.  Maybe they wouldn't, but like Thesemindz, I will take that chance.  If I see anyone, relative, friend or stranger, being raped, my first though is going to be fear for their life and mind, because even though a commonly used statistic is 2% of reported rapes end in murder, that 2% is enough to make me afraid.

I personally think you need to study more self-defense rather than arguing with people here because your line of thought, regarding use of knives versus firearms, and further how a violent conflict would occur (this is a conclusion of mine based on the fact that you seem to think that people would be able to discern exactly what weapons their attacker had based on your unarmed attacker comment) shows immaturity in a martial arts based lifestyle.  You said you're a CJ major, haven't you taken classes yet where you see the brutality of violent conflict and how hectic it is?

Edited to add:

Of course the best case scenario of mine listed above is that my girlfriend knew how to use firearms too and when the would-be-rapist entered her home she lit him up starting with the mid-section and zippered to the brain.  As we have the castle doctrine in Missouri she wouldn't have to worry about if he was 'bare-handed' or not.


----------



## Glycerine0160 (Feb 7, 2009)

Well elaborated. Well, honestly, for me it was a discussion. I was only playing devils advocate because for me, it is the best way to learn. The only reason I made that comment is cause I got some sarcasm from a previous poster but also of this one case involving the use of deadly force. Two burglars were robbing some guys house and he came out and stabbed one to death as they were fleeing out the window. The guy who stabbed that man to death received murder charges. It has been my perception that the CJ system does not view rape as atrociously as they should. That was just my induction of why I feel if you use "lethal force", I would imagine you will be fighting charges of murder. 

Regardless, this thread has definitely changed my perspective on gun control and I no longer stand in the middle.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 7, 2009)

Having seen first hand, how quickly and, by the way, nonviolently, a loaded and aimed firearm can diffuse a potentially bad situation, I certainly believe in guns.
IMO, aiming at the bad guy until he goes away isn't violence.


----------



## tellner (Feb 7, 2009)

I agree with most of what you're trying to say, Don. A gun makes an excellent deterrent. But pointing a gun at someone is violence. It is a very simple statement "Do what I say or you will die." It's the threat of overwhelming, uncorrectable, immediate, deadly violence. 

A gun isn't an evil magical talisman that turns men into monsters. Nor is it the Righteous Sword of the Lord. It's a machine tool which is designed to propel a small lead pellet at high speed for the purpose of causing death or serious injury. It has no will, no volition, no affection, no hatred, no capacity for good or evil. All of that and the character of the person on either end of it is a matter for human judgment.


----------



## Sifu Chambers (Nov 11, 2010)

Yes, I believe in guns...all types. Well, I am a TEXAN.


----------



## Sifu Chambers (Nov 11, 2010)

If guns were outlawed then only oulaws would have guns!


----------



## Sifu Chambers (Nov 11, 2010)

tellner said:


> I agree with most of what you're trying to say, Don. A gun makes an excellent deterrent. But pointing a gun at someone is violence. It is a very simple statement "Do what I say or you will die." It's the threat of overwhelming, uncorrectable, immediate, deadly violence.
> 
> A gun isn't an evil magical talisman that turns men into monsters. Nor is it the Righteous Sword of the Lord. It's a machine tool which is designed to propel a small lead pellet at high speed for the purpose of causing death or serious injury. It has no will, no volition, no affection, no hatred, no capacity for good or evil. All of that and the character of the person on either end of it is a matter for human judgment.


So when you use a pencil to write an essay and you get a failing grade, then it is the pencils fault?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 11, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."
> 
> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> 
> ...


I believe guns exist, but do they exist under your bed or on your person?
Sean


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Yes, and no.

Guns exist. They can be observed. So from a theological point of view, there is not uch to discuss 
The self defense aspect is more complex than that. I do believe that guns can be used for self defense. However, does make make the long term problems worse or not? In the US, it is a safe bet that many people have guns. Therefore criminals prepare themselves for armed people. And as a result, violence gets worse and people start to need guns as equalizer.

Now take Canada. Gun ownership is restricted. Yet for all that, they have much less gun (and other) violence than the US. So clearly it is possible to have a peaceful civilization without guns.

Then take switzerland. Most households have guns, but there are very strict rules about how ammo and guns should be stored, and what you can and cannot do with them. The 2nd amendment proponents like to point at switzerland as an example, but really the swiss rules would probably have them crying for revolution.

Then take the UK. gun ownership is very restricted. People have started using knives and the UK has an eer growing problem with knife violence with daily stabbings.

So I think it is safe to conclude that judging by the numbers in general, guns don't make a society safer or less safe, and they don't increase your personal safety. It depends on locality.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Yes absolutely!

But within the law and the right gun for the right purpose. Here we have real problems with Grizzly Bears that can atack with out warning from brush and while the official gun promoted by the feds and fish and game is a 12 guage mag with slugs caught off guard with any rifel on your shoulder you will not have a chance to fire on an animal charging from 50 feet. 

For animals I like max power and max noise. The Smith and Wesson 500 or really 50 cal pistol 500 grain loads is the only tested hand gun that has penetrated a bull elephant skull 27 inches. In a quick draw shoulder holster you can react in time devestate anything in your path. They sell it in a self defense orange case with 2 1/2 inch barrel which I do not recomend the recoil I still have a scar from the first firing the 4 inch with fire suppression is much more acurate and you can control the recoil. Note most dogs they here this or any other mag gun they just turn and walk away.

For peopel close in grapling our quick take down I like a snub nose 38 revolver they don't jamb you use as an extension of your hand hit and shoot pick your spot depending on what is needed also I use self defense loads with phosporus does not matter where you hit burns but stops them right now. For longer distance acuracy counts and and I like red dot sites and something that you can be acurate under duress.

Note: Don't carry anything you do not intend to use? If you choke the atacker will take what ever weopon you have and use it on you. Armed Kid, thugs, criminals do not have any hesitation in using them. Alaska allows you to carry any hand gun concealed with out a permit except to a bar or school or womens shelter few others?


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

KenpoTex said:


> Dude, you are throwing out a lot of questionable statements without providing any evidence to back them up...
> 
> Can you show us any instances where using deadly force against someone who was actively trying to committ rape resulted in a conviction of the actor?
> Yes, our legal system is completely screwed up and criminals who should be executed are released after only a few years. That does NOT mean that we are not allowed to use any and all means to protect ourselves.
> ...


 
Id like to point out that any atack depending on your health and age can be considerd life threatening from resulting injuries so deadly force is justified but sadly the elderly unless really practiced and commited mentally will likely just wind up arming the offender a big dog or two big dogs I can't say enough about just really give women and elders an edge and if needed the time to mentally decide to use the gun if needed. I think if you review FBI and other stats there is littel if ever successfull atacks that a good dog was present at home. Only preplaned atacks which included provisions for killing or getting rid of the dog. Also alarms and signage average criminal will pick somebody else


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

seasoned said:


> Trouble with these gun free homes is, when something goes down, and an emergency happens, in the middle of the night, the first thing they do is call 911 and all those people come over in a hurry, with all those GUNS. What is worse, is the turn the other cheek deal, when you run out of cheeks who do you call,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 *Good post! but again peopel need to be trained and ready physically and mentally to actually use what they have or they just arm the bad guys with thier gun? Seniors are really a target in our society today and 911 by the time they get thier will be calling for homicide detectives. It time for people to band together to protect each other. Our older generations should not be living alone but with family or in protected communities. Large Dogs Large Dogs and alarms and post signs you will be shot and please what good is any weopon in a gun cabinet or triger lock your dead or raped by the time you get it out? Yes keep from kids know who is in your house and lock up as needed but depending on where I lived Id have my gun under my pilow? locked doors mean nothing rot iron your windows and secure doors. *

*Pacifist feed the criminal animals and they know worst case they get three meals and somebody to do thier laundry for life while you and yours are maimed and killed. why do we waste time and taxpayers money on these demons. We need to kill them all let God sort em out!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 12, 2010)

Sifu Chambers said:


> So when you use a pencil to write an essay and you get a failing grade, then it is the pencils fault?


 
I think you misread *Tellner*, *Sifu* - he actually said the reverse of that i.e. that the choices in the use to which a firearm is put are not made by the gun but by the person.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> For animals I like max power and max noise. The Smith and Wesson 500 or really 50 cal pistol 500 grain loads is the only tested hand gun that has penetrated a bull elephant skull 27 inches.



Got many bull elephants in Alaska?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> We need to kill them all let God sort em out!!!!!!!!![/B]



You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.

IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.

Sometimes it helps to think before writing.
As an additional bonus It makes your writings more readable and coherent.
And while punctuation is subject to cultural influences, having 9 exclamation marks is a bit over the top.
Some would argue that five exclamation marks or more, is the sure sign of an insane mind. It's like saying: I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 12, 2010)

I don't believe in guns. I believe in my skills. For instance, I believe I am a pretty good shot when I need to be...


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.
> 
> IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.
> 
> ...


 

 He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.

 Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.
> 
> Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.


 

Actually, the exact quote is _Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius_ or _Kill them all. God surely knows them that are his ._ It was Arnaud Almaric, Cistercian monk and adviser to the Albignesian crusade in 1204.

The one is pretty commonly believed to lead to the other.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.
> 
> IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.
> 
> ...


 *no one is promoting the indiscriminate killing of inocents, Insane? what is insane is that people like sheep will be led to slaughter like a group letting one man tie them up and kill them or worse after these sicafants kill and rape and torture children and women our society spends millions on protecting thier rights. We need to kill them quickly but in a horible manner so the other preditors will think before doing it themselves. Criminals know they can act and put off being caught or even punished for as long as they are clever. a few !!! is nothing compared of to pacifist drible which when trust me when put to the knife they call for someone with a gun or someone to put thier own lives on the line except for dumb few that allow thier whole family to be slaughterd.*

*And by the way the guy who asked if there are elephants in Alaska I think most the educated people realize that test was not conducted here the article was in Guns and ammo realted to the review of the wepon but by the way we do and they fly to feel better.*


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.
> 
> Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.



That is correct, but the 'sort them' phrase was derived from the statement 'God knows his own'. The ethymology I mentioned was valid.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> no one is promoting the indiscriminate killing of inocents, Insane? what is insane is that people like sheep will be led to slaughter like a group letting one man tie them up and kill them or worse after these sicafants kill and rape and torture children and women our society spends millions on protecting thier rights.



I don't disagree, but it is patently false that gun ownership by definition makes for a safer society. And I proved that with my previous example. Whether people in a society have guns or not is statistically irrelevant to whether people get killed or not



Master Dan said:


> We need to kill them quickly but in a horible manner so the other preditors will think before doing it themselves.



Doesn't work. The middle ages proved that.
Death penalty in any form does not work as a deterrent.



Master Dan said:


> Criminals know they can act and put off being caught or even punished for as long as they are clever. a few !!! is nothing compared of to pacifist drible which when trust me when put to the knife they call for someone with a gun or someone to put thier own lives on the line except for dumb few that allow thier whole family to be slaughterd.



I don't mean to be rude, but I have no clue at all what you mean with that paragraph.



Master Dan said:


> *And by the way the guy who asked if there are elephants in Alaska I think most the educated people realize that test was not conducted here the article was in Guns and ammo realted to the review of the wepon but by the way we do and they fly to feel better.*



Wow.
Are you serious? And I've always thought you had elephants in alaska (ok we really need a sarcasm tag if spelling and grammar are becoming optional).
No I meant that perhaps, just perhaps, ammo that can kill a bull elephant is overkill. I know from a marksman that if ammo is too powerfull, you get bad 'flinch reflexes' that make accurate shooting much more difficult. To me, it looks like you try too much like Charles Bronson.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> No I meant that perhaps, just perhaps, ammo that can kill a bull elephant is overkill. I know from a marksman that if ammo is too powerfull, you get bad 'flinch reflexes' that make accurate shooting much more difficult. To me, it looks like you try too much like Charles Bronson.


 
Uhh...Bruno?

They've got these:




 
And that fella there isn't even near record size. I might wanna big ole cannon as well.....Have a look here​


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Ok. But in that case I hope you agree with me that that is most definitely not a self defense round. Because not only will it go right through the assailant without stopping, but also through the wall, through little susie who just happened to pass by, through little susies baby sister, and finally susies dog before burrying itself deep in the pavement.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok. But in that case I hope you agree with me that that is most definitely not a self defense round. Because not only will it go right through the assailant without stopping, but also through the wall, through little susie who just happened to pass by, through little susies baby sister, and finally susies dog before burrying itself deep in the pavement.


 

Yeah, but for once I *almost* completely understood what he said:



			
				Master Dan said:
			
		

> *For animals* I like max power and max noise. The Smith and Wesson 500 or really 50 cal pistol 500 grain loads is the only tested hand gun that has penetrated a bull elephant skull 27 inches. In a quick draw shoulder holster you can react in time devestate anything in your path. They sell it in a self defense orange case with 2 1/2 inch barrel which I do not recomend the recoil I still have a scar from the first firing the 4 inch with fire suppression is much more acurate and you can control the recoil. Note most dogs they here this or any other mag gun they just turn and walk away.


 
Not sure how much good those would do for a grizzly under hand shaking,terrifying circumstances, but it's better than nothing....heck, the best defense is *still *knowing ursine behavior.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I don't disagree, but it is patently false that gun ownership by definition makes for a safer society. And I proved that with my previous example. Whether people in a society have guns or not is statistically irrelevant to whether people get killed or not
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I think someone else made a better point related to hard statistics but its not that point if more of the right people owned guns and were properly trianed and willing to use them it woud improve. First crime goes down when more officers are added to any crime zone hard fact! do they walk around like Bobbies with only a whistle and club no! they have guns and use them and even more when it was found out that they were out gunned by the criminals they tooled up!

Now folks we are comming to real changes in America with budgets law enforcement and even saftey are going to get cut criminals study that and take advantage of that. I agree it is your personal choice and you have a right to that. Our society has changed to a hunter prey and I also said do all you can that is legal with the law for your area. I strongly believe in prevention more than anything which in the hunter prey relation will make you look less atractive to be Eaten! 

Getting back to large caliber amo there is specific custom made self defense loads and other stuff but as deterent related to noise and shear concushion factor knocks things over just getting close. Acurate? that is why I suggest the 4 inch barel with fire suppression cuts way down on recoil and acuracy is improved 100%

I will admit the feeling of having that bad boy is like Crockadile Dundee now thats a knife. Being able to crack an engine block and shoot through things is nice when needed. My Marlon uses 500 grain loads was my original cannon for bear but I found that it was accurate at 200 yards gee I could actually hunt with this but just not fast enough to pull off your shoulder if you have 2 seconds to react and heavy to carry all day. 

*The reason death penalty does not work (jump in guys) is that it is not a death penalty most will die of old age before they get executed its the same death penalty everyone has we know we are going to die just not when? *

*Not for all cases but the killing of unarmed inocent people should be followed by death in 30 days. Data can be resorted or presented in any fashion but you do not have the quantative data to prove your point and the dark ages only proved that dictators and monarchy ruled by the rich and powerful abused the underprivlaged. You cannon compare that to a fair democracy and republic? *

*There was a reason that our founders put the laws in to bear arms not arm Bears?*


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 12, 2010)

Thousands of people got hung in England of yesteryear, using th eshort drop method, meaning that the people hanging by their neck didn't die instatly, but spent a good time squirming before they died. And then they also had hangin, drawing and quartering, where you were first hung until you passed out, then cut down and revived, then were disemboweled, and had your arms and limbs hacked off.

That didn't work as a deterrent either.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 12, 2010)

It doesn't matter if you believe in guns.

They believe in you.
They believe in you.


----------



## Never_A_Reflection (Nov 12, 2010)

This topic is very old and can be debated in both directions for eternity.  I will simply state that I can't hit an assailant from 5 feet away with my hands when they have a gun, but I can shoot them.  Having the ability to both defend myself with my body and defend myself from a distance with a gun is good.



Bruno@MT said:


> Thousands of people got hung in England of yesteryear, using th eshort drop method, meaning that the people hanging by their neck didn't die instatly, but spent a good time squirming before they died. And then they also had hangin, drawing and quartering, where you were first hung until you passed out, then cut down and revived, then were disemboweled, and had your arms and limbs hacked off.
> 
> That didn't work as a deterrent either.



All that was proven in the middle ages was the gratuitous, torturous deaths were not a deterrent, and that is because people become terrified of being accused of something and put to death in a horrible, painful, disgraceful way that they rebel.  Nowadays we have forensic sciences that make it much less likely (not impossible, mind you, but much less likely) that you will be sentenced to death for something you didn't do, and we have methods of putting people to death that are about as humane as killing someone can be.  I tend to be of the mind that if someone is convicted of purposefully murdering a person outside of a self-defense situation should be put to death quickly and humanely--being put in prison for the rest of your life while you continually appeal the decision without any new evidence doesn't exactly put fear into people considering murder, but I would believe that if they knew that getting caught and proven guilty would result in lethal injection within a few months' time then it MIGHT be a deterrent.  That said, murderers are insane so that may not hold true


----------



## d1jinx (Nov 12, 2010)

I believe in GUNS..... bullets too.  lots & lots-o-bullets.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 12, 2010)

Personally, I don't like guns.  I think too many chuckleheads get a god complex when holding a gun.  Too many of these same chuckleheads have no training and are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member if they actually had to use one for self defense.  However, I'm not an advocate of taking guns away from people ..well unless they are felons.  I think some mandatory training or a test of some sort should be administered for gun ownership though.  We require and age limit and a test to drive, but to operate a tool which has only the purpose of destruction, we ask for nothing. I also think felons in posession of guns, in particular violent felons, get harsh sentences.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 13, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.
> 
> Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.


 
<sarcasm>SOF: Bastion of Ethics and Morality</sarcasm>


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 13, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Uhh...Bruno?
> 
> They've got these:
> 
> ...


 
Uh... according to its source, it_ was._

But wow. That story's impressive.

http://www.impactlab.net/2006/11/21/the-worlds-record-largest-bear/


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 13, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Uhh...Bruno?
> 
> They've got these:
> 
> ...


 
They can run as fast as a horse for 50 yards comming from the brush and your average high power rifle will not even phase them its said that not even a heart shot will keep them from doing damage to you before they fall over. You need to hit the brain becasue that stops motor skills. Everything else just pisses them off. I don't like to kill anything I  would not eat and try to plan ahead to prevent supprising one.

When I traveled by boat six thousand nautical miles researching village to village where I would eventually stop and live and teach we stopped at an Island famous for large bears like this one they told us wear a bell on your back pack it will scare them away? yeh right sounds like a dinner bell to me I made the deck hand were it and walk in front.

Up here if you don't like someone you rub them with bacon greese and leave them. Its also said just carry a 22 pistol not for the bear but shoot your friend in the leg then run. Humor is a little different here. 

In the late 90's I had a grant for equipment for my students on an Island in the Bering Sea deadliest catch just 40 miles from Russia Unlike Sara Palin I can see Russia on a clear day. I landed a week before Christmas and had alot of stuff for the children the agent refused to load my gear and I refused to leave it to get on the snow machine and leave it. It was 30 below and 30 mph winds and they told me the school would send a ride for me.

I looked down the runway and two Polar Bears were eating something or someone? I am alive becasue the Eskimo Elders had taught me about bear I had nothing and wind chill of 80 below was life threatening even with winter gear. Polar Bears are the only animal in the world that can smell you from 30 miles and hunt you following you tracks and have no fear what so ever we are food. I survived becasue the Eskimo Elders had taught me about the bears like a T Rex thier sight is based on movement so I became a statue for 1 hour and the wind was from them to me they could not smell me.

The School atendant showed up to load me and my stuff with tears in his eyes he only just found out I was there and he had found a body of a man 30 feet from where I was standing we got inside and he told me I was so lucky in their tradition the bears belong to me now and I said I don't really care I am just glad I was not their Christmas Dinner?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 13, 2010)

Josh Oakley said:


> Uh... according to its source, it_ was._
> 
> But wow. That story's impressive.
> 
> http://www.impactlab.net/2006/11/21/the-worlds-record-largest-bear/


 
That's not "the source," and it's almost entirely wrong:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

Ted Winnen, the man who shot the bear, was in the Air Force, and not a Forest Service worker.

At 10'6". and 1200 lbs., the bear was quite large, but not a world record.

There's no evidence it had eaten anyone.


----------



## Scott T (Nov 13, 2010)

Personally, I like guns, but when it comes to killing people (in a non-military/police role), I believe them to be the weapons of choice for cowards. Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'll be turning off the main power breaker -- located outside my bedroom door -- and bringing out the axe.


----------



## Flea (Nov 13, 2010)

Back to the bear article, does this strike anyone else as a peculiar final sentence to casually tack on to the end of an article?



> Based on the contents of the bears stomach,  the Fish and Wildlife Commission established the bear had killed at  least two humans in the past 72 hours including a missing hiker.



You'd think the hunters would want to take more credit for making the forest a little safer.  Their priorities seem a little weird ... but that's just me, and I freely admit that I've never hunted.

On topic,  personally I made a decision that I don't want to have guns in my life.  A lot of it has to do with a family tragedy a few years back.  There are pragmatic aspects to my decision as well.  I agree that there are good practical uses for guns, but it's not for me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 13, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I think some mandatory training or a test of some sort should be administered for gun ownership though.  We require and age limit and a test to drive, but to operate a tool which has only the purpose of destruction, we ask for nothing. I also think felons in posession of guns, in particular violent felons, get harsh sentences.



My only issue with the Above is that Cars arent constitutionally guaranteed rights, so I disagree that its a similar argument.   Also, The wording of the constitution regarding weapons is clear: The Right of the People To Keep And Bear Arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  That does *not say* The Right of the People To Keep And Bear Arm SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UNLESS WE DON'T LIKE THE LEVEL OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE, OR FEEL THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY POSE A RISK BY OWNING A WEAPON, OR HAVE NOT PAID US A FEE TO DO IT, OR WE THINK THE WEAPON IS SCARY LOOKING OR DANGEROUS.   

One can argue, in the face of the recent slew of news stories regarding cyberbullying related deaths, that we need to impose background tests, age restrictions licensing, and waiting periods to use freedom of speech.  After all, just like Weapon ownership, all that regulation comes down to fear of a small overall percentage of rotten apples spoiling the bunch... and a small number of people executing their 1st amendment rights in a dangerous way is leading to the deaths of our youth... just like a small number of weapon owners are using them to cause the deaths of their fellow man.  

That being the case, both need to be regulated for our safety.  Now, send me what you want to say, and If after your 3 day "cool down" period, if its safe to say I'll let you go ahead and post it.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 13, 2010)

I can appreciate your stance on this, but I don't agree with it.  The internet is not a tool used primarily for bullying.  A gun has only one use, and that is killing.  Times were a lot different when this country was founded and guns were a necessary for a majority of the citizenry.  Now, guns are a necessity for only a small minority of people.  I'm not saying take guns away.  I don't think that would be even remotely a good answer.  What I am saying is if a person is going to take the responsibility of owning a gun, then they know and understand what that responsibility is, and they are trained enough to use the tool as it is meant to be used.  Just owning a gun does not give the skill set to use one.  Trying to use a gun when you do not have the skill set to do so is dangerous to both the user and anyone within range of the gun.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 13, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I can appreciate your stance on this, but I don't agree with it.  The internet is not a tool used primarily for bullying.  A gun has only one use, and that is killing.



Personally, I think this is a moot point, as a gun, knife, sword, spear, shuriken, etc... are only as dangerous as the intentions of the person using them.  Punishing EVERYONE because a few people may use them incorrectly is IMO both wrong and outside of the intentions of the framers.  The internet may not be designed to be used as a weapon, _but it is being used as thus_, and therefore I see it as the same, based on the stupid arguments most of the Anti Gun people make.



WC_lun said:


> Times were a lot different when this country was founded and guns were a necessary for a majority of the citizenry.



Again, that argument can be applied to other Amendments as well.  The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate when they granted us freedom of speech, that millions of people all over the world would have the ability to hear what is said about what you did, and to ridicule you from everywhere on the internet.   



WC_lun said:


> Now, guns are a necessity for only a small minority of people.  I'm not saying take guns away.  I don't think that would be even remotely a good answer.



I disagree on the necessity for a small minority of people.  Well, ok, maybe not disagree so much as I do recognize the number of people who will ever NEED to use one is rather small, but the idea that the Police and the state as a whole has no obligation to protect us, means we do NEED the ability to protect ourselves should the occasion arise.  And by making it all but impossible (as they have done here in Illinois) leaves us with very few options for doing so.  



WC_lun said:


> What I am saying is if a person is going to take the responsibility of owning a gun, then they know and understand what that responsibility is, and they are trained enough to use the tool as it is meant to be used.



We are in agreement here, I think people NEED to know their weapon, whether it be a stick, a sword, or a Gun.  But doing so was NOT, nor is it, specified in the Constitution regarding keeping and bearing arms.  



WC_lun said:


> Just owning a gun does not give the skill set to use one.  Trying to use a gun when you do not have the skill set to do so is dangerous to both the user and anyone within range of the gun.



It can, or it can not.  Not having any skill with a gun, someone responsible can still pick one up, point it down range and pull the trigger and not kill anyone. Or point it at someone and Kill them, intentionally.  Or they can have an accident.  But using one is not rocket science.  Using one _well_ might be, and yes, I think people ARE better off if they are trained.  I'll never disparage the idea of training, until the idea of that training starts bordering on the ludicrous to get a permit, when the intention of the founding fathers was clear... 

We should all have the ability to be armed.  

And this also doesn't even address stupid restrictions and bans on NON-firearm related weapons.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 13, 2010)

Cryzombie, you sound as if you believe the constitution is a static, dead, document.  It isn't.  It has and will change.  The use of firearms has changed since colonial times.  It is my opinion that the laws regarding the ownership of firearms should change as well.  Not to limit ownership, but to promote public safety.  I understand that a lot of people feel it is a god given right to own a firearm.  I actually don't have an issue with that.  I'd just like to have the right to not have to worry about getting shot because some zipperhead thinks he's in a freaking John Woo movie.

My best friend owns guns.  We occasionally go to the range together.  He is a responsible gun owner.  He keeps them away from the kids in his house and he knows what a gun can do, so he respects them and is responsible with them.  There is no reason in the world he shouldn't have the ability to own guns.

 I have a neighbor who owns a gun.  He constantly talks about popping a cap in someone's *** if they cross him.  He has no training and no respect for what a gun can do. He almost killed one of his children by accidently discharging the weapon.  In my opinion, he has no bussiness owning a gun.  A little bit of training with my neighbor would probably remedy some of those issues.  Of course there is no way to legislate away stupitidy, and there are always going to be stupid people.  However, ignorance can be remedied and when it comes to gun usage, I'm all for that.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Cryzombie, you sound as if you believe the constitution is a static, dead, document.



Actually that is not true. I do recognize the process by which it is designed to change, and don't think our lawmakers should be able to ignore it because they want to, until such a time as those changes are made.

As far as my point of viewIf I can explain, Legally, here it is moderately difficult to get a firearm, super easy to lose your right to have one, and we are the ONLY state in the Union left that has ZERO provisions for any right to have a weapon outside of the home.  In some counties, this doesn't just apply to firearms, even small pocketknives will get you thrown in jail.  Meanwhile Crime stats are high, and for a while here just a few years ago, Chicago was the murder capital of the nation... it's still up there. (Personally I think it might still be, but they reclassified some crimes so they could say "see the rate is going down, not up) 

Because of this, I am currently hell bent against anyone who wants to impose further limitations.  The limits here are already pretty stifling, and  they aren't stopping the criminals. 

But that's a given.   

Perhaps if I lived someplace where the gun laws weren't so tight, I might feel a little closer to your position.  Like I said, education and training are good, important things.  But right now, I don't feel like they need to be ANOTHER precursor and hoop to jump thru we have before being able to own a firearm.  I'd trade tho.  An NRA saftey class for, say, the 2 month wait for the FOID we need to purchase firearms and ammo.  Pass the class, get handed a permit on the way out the door.  

Works for me.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

Scott T said:


> Personally, I like guns, but when it comes to killing people (in a non-military/police role), I believe them to be the weapons of choice for cowards. Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'll be turning off the main power breaker -- located outside my bedroom door -- and bringing out the axe.


 
*Uh? When your 70 can you find the breaker box? Can you find the Axe? Can you lift it when you find it?*

*When you manage to lift your axe he has a gun?*

*The coward is the one preying on inocent people. *


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

First the two primary choices of death by suicide here are hanging and shooting with acidental shooting death related to children and gun cleaning. Having one of my good friends 1st cousin by this culture, just burried his 13 year old son two weeks ago. First it was reported suicide, then a group of teen agers in the room playing Russian Roulet, then gun cleaning accident?

One thing for sure alot of alcohol was being cosumed by the adults in the house for two weeks? 50,000 peopel die in America per year from driving thier cars. Should we all go back to horses? Did you know if we had that many horses again it would effect the environment dramatically from the methane and all the poop?

We accept the deaths above with out a thought because the means justifie the ends? 
I support the right of any person who believes it is thier moral choice to not defend themselves by guns or any means. But I will choose to defend my person and my family by any means necessary.

One thing for sure education and training should be mandated. Our Do Jang will be building a youth education camp two story building on the beach for traditional food gathering and other education science projects one of those will be NRA sponsored hunter safety classes and regular trips to the gun range.

Last, People besides the training of how to shoot must have mentally rehearsed the different scenarios related to using the gun and have made a clear decision in thier mind what they will do before it happens to them or they will choke or make the wrong choice?

I do not advocate hurting or killing a person over just property alone or while they are trying to flee. 

I had a violent lesbian become fixated with my wife who then made threats against her and then our terminal handicapped child in a nursing home even tried to assess the child but was stopped by security. She had a violent record of asualt and drug use. This was in a major city. When I consulted with the police department what I should do they said take a shot gun cut the barrel down keep it loaded by the front door when she comes to the door blow her in half. Luckly she was put away in time I don't I would have like to have tested that one in court but I did put the gun by the door.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 14, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> I had a violent lesbian become fixated with my wife who then made threats against her and then our terminal handicapped child in a nursing home even tried to assess the child but was stopped by security. She had a violent record of asualt and drug use. This was in a major city. When I consulted with the police department what I should do they said take a shot gun cut the barrel down keep it loaded by the front door when she comes to the door blow her in half. Luckly she was put away in time I don't I would have like to have tested that one in court but I did put the gun by the door.


A US police force advised you to cut down a shot fun barrel? Your name wouldn't be Weaver, would it?


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2010)

Master Dan said:


> When I consulted with the police department what I should do they said take a shot gun cut the barrel down



Ahem.

:BSmeter:


----------



## Big Don (Nov 14, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> Ahem.
> 
> :BSmeter:


Yeah, that was the feeling I got, I just didn't want to come out and say it like that...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 14, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, that was the feeling I got, I just didn't want to come out and say it like that...



Don't feel shy 
From time to time I do agree with you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Nov 14, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, that was the feeling I got, I just didn't want to come out and say it like that...



Yeah well I understand I can be a dick...


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 15, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Doesn't work. The middle ages proved that.
> Death penalty in any form does not work as a deterrent.


Depends on what you mean by 'work as a deterrent.' 

It may work inasmuch as *some* will be deterred by it. There are people for whom fear of punnishment keeps them honest (so to speak) and the greater the punishment, the greater the fear for such individuals. 

Chances are, however, that the kind of crimes that usually warrant the death penalty are perpetrated mostly by people who do not fall into that category. 

Arguably, very few of the punishments levied by the legal system are particularly effective as deterrents. 

The real question is whether you are deterring or punishing (or rehabilitating, though that is another discussion in and of itself). If you are punishing an individual, the death penalty most certainly prevents them from repeating the offense ever. A prison sentence deters them from repeating the offense for the duration of their incarceration.

One of the problems with strong punishments is that they are ineffective as deterrents against the kinds of people that you wish to deter. Ted Bundy and Jeff Dahmer would not have been deterred by the death penalty, though their crimes certainly warranted it. 

At the other end of the spectrum, those who commit violent crimes in a moment of anger are not deterred because during that moment, they are not thinking of the consequences of their actions. Then you have a thrill seeking element where individuals commit crimes because they get a kick out of getting away with it. Kind of like the jewel thief of mystery novels and Batman stories for whom more security is an even greater incentive. 

Personally, I think that the death penalty serves primarily to satisfy two needs of society: one is the need of people to know that the 'bad guy' got what was coming to him. The second is that it calms the fears of those who fear that the bad guy will, upon relase from prison/granting of parole/escape, go out and _____ again.

Outside of these, and the fact that the specific individual will, indeed, never commit a crime again, the death penalty presents a good number of moral and ethical problems, not the least of which is what happens if you get the wrong guy. 

My apologies for the tangent.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 15, 2010)

Thesemindz said:


> Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."
> 
> So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."
> 
> ...


I do not believe in guns for *my own personal self*. Primarily, I consider them impractical for me. I live in a home that is large enough that unless I carry it with me around the house, I will probably not have time to get it if I am set upon suddenly. I do not have a conceal/carry permit and neither my job nor my area justify my having one. Permit or not, weapons are prohibited on my company's property, which is where I spend the majority of my waking hours. Finally, and most importantly, I am a lousy shot and do not have the time to devote to training to change that. If I ever decide to study the pistol as an MA weapon, that may change, but for now, I suck in the usage of firearms and am mature enough to accept that reality. 

I have *no problem* with others owning one for self defense, home protection, or brining home the bacon so to speak. I have enjoyed the times that friends who do own guns have taken me shooting (which, while fun, is how I learned of my horrendous shooting abilities). 

However, I also do not have any issue with the government making it more difficult for just anyone to obtain one. Skill aside, thorough background checks need to be conducted on *anyone* purchasing a firearm in my opinion. I have no problem with being subjected to a background check prior to purchase of a gun. 

Also, though I am not sure that this should be addressed by the legal system, some people have temperments that make them ill suited for gun ownership. 

As to your questions,
*Do you believe in self defense?* 
Yes

*Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? *
I believe that all have a right to life and the right to defend that life with the use of appropriate force, up to and including the use of firearms to wound or kill an attacker should the circumstances warrant it.  I should point out, however, that use of firearms is not always the best course of action.  I should also like to point out that the term, 'unwelcome aggression' is suitably vague.

*Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? *
Too broad a question. Any circumstances at all can mean way too many things, so without some qualification, my answer is no. 

*Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves?*
I realize that this is directed to those who are morally or philosophically opposed to the use of firearms in self defense (as opposed to myself, who is merely incompetent in their use). But the question assumes that to be morally or philosophically opposed to the use of _firearms_ in self defense is to be *also* opposed to self defense, which is generally not the case with those who 'don't believe in guns.'

Daniel


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 15, 2010)

To not believe in guns/firearms and or not to train in them in today's world is not only impractical but not very realistic!  They exist, they will exist for a long time. (maybe forever) You may end up on the opposite end of one and if you do god help you if you do not know what they are capable of and how they work.  Today's martial practitioner owes it to themselves to not only be familiar with firearms but also to integrate it into their personal security system.  Failure to do so may just leave you up a creek without a........


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 15, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The real question is whether you are deterring or punishing (or rehabilitating, though that is another discussion in and of itself).



Absolutely. I agree. That is an entirely different argument.

My reply was specifically towards Dan's assertion that gruesome death sentences would have value as a deterrent. And that is definitely not the case. It doesn't deter now in the countries that have it, and it didn't work when gruesome did not begin to descrine the ingeniuousness with which people were executed.

All the other angles concerning death penalty are different discussions, but when it comes to deterring people, it just doesn't work.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 15, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Absolutely. I agree. That is an entirely different argument.
> 
> My reply was specifically towards Dan's assertion that gruesome death sentences would have value as a deterrent. And that is definitely not the case. It doesn't deter now in the countries that have it, and it didn't work when gruesome did not begin to descrine the ingeniuousness with which people were executed.
> 
> All the other angles concerning death penalty are different discussions, but when it comes to deterring people, it just doesn't work.


Twould make life simpler if it did work, but unfortunately, solutions are never so simple.

Daniel


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 15, 2010)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> To not believe in guns/firearms and or not to train in them in today's world is not only impractical but not very realistic!  They exist, they will exist for a long time. (maybe forever) You may end up on the opposite end of one and if you do god help you if you do not know what they are capable of and how they work.  Today's martial practitioner owes it to themselves to not only be familiar with firearms but also to integrate it into their personal security system.  *Failure to do so may just leave you up a creek without a........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Certainly is a possibility.  Not sure if you were responding to me directly or just commenting; if the latter, my apologies.

I am well aware of what a gun can do and of how they work. Carrying one is really not an option for me at this time.  As I said, I certainly do not project my own circumstances onto others; I certainly believe in the value of firearms for home protection and self defense. 

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 25, 2010)

I believe that firearms are an effective tool. Anyone who says they 'don't believe in guns' is saying something silly, like 'I don't believe in hammers' or 'I don't believe in screwdrivers' or 'I don't believe in chairs'.

What they really mean is that either they don't believe in lethal violence for self-defense or they have a severe case of hopolophobia.

At it's root, a gun is merely a tool.........it provides an individual an physical advantage via a small explosive charge that propels a projectile......it doesn't do anything a person really couldn't do without a gun, but it does it more efficiently, and at distance.


----------



## Hapkidoman (Dec 15, 2010)

It is a hard and cold "proven" fact that when the populace is as well armed as the criminals, the rate of crime goes down. The criminal is less likley to break into a house or try to car jack someone if they believe this person may be armed with a fire arm, simply because they do not want to get shot while commiting the crime. Persons committing crimes will when ever possible choose someone they believe to be an easy target. If it is possible that I am armed, I am less likley to be targeted, by a robber, rapist etc. You get the picture.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Dec 15, 2010)

Hapkidoman said:


> It is a hard and cold "proven" fact that when the populace is as well armed as the criminals, the rate of crime goes down. The criminal is less likley to break into a house or try to car jack someone if they believe this person may be armed with a fire arm, simply because they do not want to get shot while commiting the crime. Persons committing crimes will when ever possible choose someone they believe to be an easy target. If it is possible that I am armed, I am less likley to be targeted, by a robber, rapist etc. You get the picture.


I would be curious as to what the cold proof is; not disagreeing with you, but I would be interested in the data.

As a general rule, this factors in the same way that various security devices do; criminals will choose the easy to break into car with packages on the seat over the well secured vehicle with a blinking red light.  Less hassle.

I don't know that it would reduce break ins, though it may reduce home invasions or break ins that occur while the occupants are home.  More than likely, the break ins would shift to occurring more when nobody is home, which is already when the majority occurr as it is.

Also, owning a gun and being armed are not the same.  I have a sword in my house (several actually), but I am not automatically armed by virtue of being in my home.  

So then the question become how is a gun effective in the home?  Is it primarilly for arming yourself when you hear a noise and choose to investigate or for when a loud knock on the door comes at an odd hour? 

To those of you who keep guns in the home for home defense, what is your primary strategy?  Unless the gun is on your person at all times, it would seem that you'd just as vulnerable to home invasion by an armed intruder as a non gun owner would be.

Thank you,

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 15, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> So then the question become how is a gun effective in the home? Is it primarilly for arming yourself when you hear a noise and choose to investigate or for when a loud knock on the door comes at an odd hour?
> 
> To those of you who keep guns in the home for home defense, what is your primary strategy? Unless the gun is on your person at all times, it would seem that you'd just as vulnerable to home invasion by an armed intruder as a non gun owner would be.
> 
> ...


 
Secure, locked doors that will slow down any would-be home invaders long enough to arm yourself would be one good strategy........having a family plan of action in the event of such an incident, such as folks have with fires, would also be a good choice.

The reality is that criminals do a cost/benefit analysis when picking a target.........hard targets will only be picked if they offer substantial payout.......if you don't keep $500,000.00 in jewels on hand, it's unlikely that criminals will take you on for the Plasma TV and a couple hundred in cash IF they see a strong likelihood of armed resistance.........it's just not worth it.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 15, 2010)

Hapkidoman said:


> It is a hard and cold "proven" fact that when the populace is as well armed as the criminals, the rate of crime goes down. The criminal is less likley to break into a house or try to car jack someone if they believe this person may be armed with a fire arm, simply because they do not want to get shot while commiting the crime. Persons committing crimes will when ever possible choose someone they believe to be an easy target. If it is possible that I am armed, I am less likley to be targeted, by a robber, rapist etc. You get the picture.


 

Actually what is a proven fact is that when people are educated, and have half way decent jobs, they don&#8217;t commit crimes. Poverty and its brother ignorance is the enemy.

Japan and Singapore have incredibly strict gun laws and their crime rates are much lower then anywhere in the US. Look to Canada and Western Europe also, stricter gun laws and lower crime rates.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Dec 16, 2010)

As with most things, it depends on the other variables.

If you live in a society that is relatively peaceful with very few gun owners then adding more guns will increase the harm. But if you have lots of crimes & violence already, then supporting gun control or gun carrying laws will likely decrease crime because one is able to defend oneself and hopefully serves a deterrent to criminals.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 16, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> As with most things, it depends on the other variables.
> 
> If you live in a society that is relatively peaceful with very few gun owners then adding more guns will increase the harm. But if you have lots of crimes & violence already, then supporting gun control or gun carrying laws will likely decrease crime because one is able to defend oneself and hopefully serves a deterrent to criminals.


 
Ya I disagree with the reasoning.
an armed society is a polite society in my opinion.
I dont care if I have the only gun in America, it will still be better fo rme to be armed with one if some criminal want sot come after me with a machete, or a bat, or anything else.
I dont think that everyone needs to have a gun, but if a criminal thinks that you have a gun he is going to go look for someone he thinks does not have a gun.
A gun is a tool, like any other tool it can be misused. I think that both sides are never going to agree on this, but I personally see alot more reason in the argument that its a tool and can be used in good or bad ways, rather then its an evil instrument that only leads to troubles. I have met very few reasonable people who are anti gun, and most anti gun people come across as overcontrolling. Trying to tell everyone else how to live their lives. I hate that. I dont tell them they have to own a gun, or see a gun, or anything, I simply want them to leave me the hell alone.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually what is a proven fact is that when people are educated, and have half way decent jobs, they don&#8217;t commit crimes. Poverty and its brother ignorance is the enemy.
> 
> Japan and Singapore have incredibly strict gun laws and their crime rates are much lower then anywhere in the US. Look to Canada and Western Europe also, stricter gun laws and lower crime rates.


They also have a many-times more homogeneous culture and society...

It's always easier to victimize "the other..."  whether that other is the "rich white boy in my 'hood" or the "ghetto rat invading my suburb."


----------



## chinto (Dec 16, 2010)

OK folks, It really is simple. so please listen carefully and remember its proven fact...WEAPONS CONTROL OF ANY KIND DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


ok now history shows that no matter how draconian the penalty's outlawing weapons does not work at all.  weather in Colombia, or Okinawa or England! So the question of, "do you believe in a weapon?", is at best ludicrous and more aptly one of the very few stupid questions in existence!

Of course I believe in guns, I also believe in hammers, drills and welders. they are all just tools. neither good or bad. 
Can I use the tools above? yes, gun or hammer or drill.  no tool kills. and yes every one up there and a lot more have 'killed people' by the definition of the anti-gun and other anti-weapons nuts.

NO WEAPON IN HISTORY HAS EVER KILLED ANY ONE!  The PERSON with that weapon did!!!! please for Gods sake get that through your heads.  its  the hard heart and the hand of the one with or with out a weapon that kills when a killing happens. some are good people who are forced to kill to survive an attack. others are evil and criminals out to harm any one they can. This makes the weapon in question neither good or bad. it is just a tool!  So I think that every one is entitled to have posses and keep and carry a weapon. I also think that they should be held responsible for how they use it.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 16, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually what is a proven fact is that when people are educated, and have half way decent jobs, they dont commit crimes. Poverty and its brother ignorance is the enemy.
> 
> Japan and Singapore have incredibly strict gun laws and their crime rates are much lower then anywhere in the US. Look to Canada and Western Europe also, stricter gun laws and lower crime rates.



********. Crime rates between countries are full of inconsistencies. In Japan they don't count deaths as "murder" as we would here. Here "gun violence"/"gun death" stats include suicide:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html 



> "Gun death" statistics are frequently cited, in the manner above, to strongly suggest that guns are the cause behind the high violent death rate in the U.S. As in the case of the Los Angeles Times article, no mention is made that over half of those violent deaths are suicides. The CNN article mentions gun homicides and gun suicides, but fails to show us the total violent death rate of other countries, not just gun deaths. For example, in Japan, where gun ownership is rare, its total suicide rate is higher than our total suicide rate.



As to the "they have no guns and look they have no crime"...******** comparison.

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

_Japan has harsh anti-gun and anti-crime laws and a low homicide rate, but Japanese-Americans, who live under our laws and have access to guns, also have a low homicide rate. Japanese immigrants bring something with them that inhibits homicide and is transmitted to their children and grandchildren. It may be self-control or love of education, but it has nothing to do with laws. Cultural factors are clearly important. To study the effect of gun laws, statisticians would first have to correct for all the cultural differences between various nations. Not enough is known to do this. The best we can do is observing what happens when new gun laws are passed in the U.S. and Germany, or when Japanese live in the U.S. In these cases, little effect of gun laws is seen._


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 16, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> They also have a many-times more homogeneous culture and society...
> 
> It's always easier to victimize "the other..." whether that other is the "rich white boy in my 'hood" or the "ghetto rat invading my suburb."


 
Homogenous???
Have you ever been to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver???


----------



## Ken Morgan (Dec 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> ********. Crime rates between countries are full of inconsistencies. In Japan they don't count deaths as "murder" as we would here. Here "gun violence"/"gun death" stats include suicide:
> 
> http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
> 
> ...


 



Really unbiased sources.

BTW I like guns, I have guns and enjoy shooting. 

It is a proven fact that when people, are educated and have good jobs the crime rate is low. That fact holds true *everywhere* in the world, transcending culture, religion and country of origin.


----------

