Do you believe in guns?

[WC_lun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ahem.

:BSmeter:

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

 

[Bruno@MT]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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’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.