Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 146 Posts

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Some of you might just blow this thread off as another gun thread, but I thought it was an excellent read. What do you think? Is this guy off his rocker?

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
source
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
The guy's off his rocker. Anyone who thinks society is better with guns introduced in to the equation is an idiot. Humans are idiots as a whole, and are not meant to be able to carry something that can produce lethal force in one go. The simple facts and statistics are true in saying that if guns were never created, murders and simply just violence would be on a much smaller scale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
Oh, but this does not mean I don't support citizens being allowed to carry guns to defend themselves. Because other people have guns, and other people want to hurt you, and you should be allowed to defend yourself. I'm saying that I think guns are not civilized in the least bit, because if you think about it, guns were not introduced merely to be able to defend yourself, guns were created so that people could kill other living things faster. That's what it really comes down to. You can't tell me that guns are simply there just so you can defend yourself, because guns aren't even something that went wrong, they're doing their purpose when robbers and murderers kill people. Guns were made to kill things faster. And that's all they were made for. That, is why guns are not civilized.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I think the invention of the gun was just an evolution of every other thing along the line that produces death. It could be the death of an animal food source or it could be the death of your attacker.

Firearms in general are inanimate objects without feelings. It's the act and intention of the person using it that needs to be addressed. This is why I laugh every time I hear Barak Obama open his mouth. He is now pushing for a nation wide ban on all assault weapons because of the number of kids killed in US cities...my question is, how many of those kids were killed with "assault weapons?" The problem isn't the firearms, is the lack of education, the lack of initiative among the majority of the poor people to do better, it's drug trafficking, and general poverty. He also said recently that it's a lack of love. Good luck getting a bill passed that imposes love on people.

Without firearms, we'd still have swords, rocks, sticks, spears, knives, etc. Without firearms, we could compare having equal weapons such as two people carrying knives.

I think the guy's logic is very good and very clear. He makes a point that having two very unequal opponents in size and physical ability become equal by the use and deployment of a firearm.

I think in a society where everyone was equally armed, we'd see much less violence. There are officers high up in their ranking in LA that feel more people carrying guns (legally armed citizens carrying for the purpose of self defense) would lower violence because the criminals would eventually get the point that more and more of their targets are going to put up resistance.

A person who is carrying a firearm as a form of self defense to keep up with the number of criminals who are committing crimes with firearms is comparable to the arms race of the Cold War. Seeing how we were fairly evenly matched in nukes, we knew how devastating the result would be should they ever be deployed. I think the same follows for regular citizens arming themselves against criminals. The idea is to stay alive, not look for a fight or a conflict. We're not talking about vigilantism here, just staying alive.

I understand where the guy is coming from that if you can match force for force, you take away your enemy or opponent's ability to get an advantage on you.

This is all theoretical due to the fact that concealed carrying means that your attacker wouldn't know you're carrying until you drew down on him/her and at that point, you more than likely will be doing society a favor by adding a douse of chlorine to gene pool.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
I think the invention of the gun was just an evolution of every other thing along the line that produces death. It could be the death of an animal food source or it could be the death of your attacker.

Firearms in general are inanimate objects without feelings. It's the act and intention of the person using it that needs to be addressed. This is why I laugh every time I hear Barak Obama open his mouth. He is now pushing for a nation wide ban on all assault weapons because of the number of kids killed in US cities...my question is, how many of those kids were killed with "assault weapons?" The problem isn't the firearms, is the lack of education, the lack of initiative among the majority of the poor people to do better, it's drug trafficking, and general poverty. He also said recently that it's a lack of love. Good luck getting a bill passed that imposes love on people.

Without firearms, we'd still have swords, rocks, sticks, spears, knives, etc. Without firearms, we could compare having equal weapons such as two people carrying knives.

I think the guy's logic is very good and very clear. He makes a point that having two very unequal opponents in size and physical ability become equal by the use and deployment of a firearm.

I think in a society where everyone was equally armed, we'd see much less violence. There are officers high up in their ranking in LA that feel more people carrying guns (legally armed citizens carrying for the purpose of self defense) would lower violence because the criminals would eventually get the point that more and more of their targets are going to put up resistance.

A person who is carrying a firearm as a form of self defense to keep up with the number of criminals who are committing crimes with firearms is comparable to the arms race of the Cold War. Seeing how we were fairly evenly matched in nukes, we knew how devastating the result would be should they ever be deployed. I think the same follows for regular citizens arming themselves against criminals. The idea is to stay alive, not look for a fight or a conflict. We're not talking about vigilantism here, just staying alive.

I understand where the guy is coming from that if you can match force for force, you take away your enemy or opponent's ability to get an advantage on you.

This is all theoretical due to the fact that concealed carrying means that your attacker wouldn't know you're carrying until you drew down on him/her and at that point, you more than likely will be doing society a favor by adding a douse of chlorine to gene pool.
I think Adam made a better point than you think.

No guns= less killing

If you're going to tell me that there would be just as much murder if guns were not introduced into the world, then I'd say your logic went off to left field somewhere. And I think that the very fact that guns make it easier to kill makes it impossible to conclude that guns are civilization, given what evil can be done with them.

As you say, we take out guns and we're left with knives, stick, stones etc. Consider for a moment how much more effort it takes to do damage with one of these items than it does to use a gun. Also, someone is much more likely to be able to fight back if a person has to get up close, or at least closer, if attacked with any of those items. Does this mean we would be better of without each of these, because they can be used to kill as well? Obviously not, given what other uses they have. A gun only has one use: to cause physical harm. But I digress, because in all of this I am assuming that guns were never created.

So to your points, in a world where guns already exist.

Firstly, its not surprising that some Cops would think that arming everyone would cause less violence. They are armed, and usually they are armed for defensive reasons. So their logic is obviously that guns make for good self- defense.

And your logic saying that arming everyone would have similar results as the Cold War doesn't really work. Consider; the Russians and American government were worried about preserving a country, and therefore less likely to release a preemptive strike given the consequences. A person seeing that someone may be coming after them and acting preemptively is much more likely, because they are protecting and only thinking about themselves.

Also, neither of the countries had a clear cut advantage in the arms race, but only because they had no means to set themselves apart. People with guns are different. Some people are much more proficient with a firearm than others, and therefore have an advantage. The simple truch is that people with a gun aren't always just set on self preservation. There is a darkness in everyone, and by arming more people you are giving them better access to act on that darkness. I think that there are people who would kill if they had better access to do so, and therefore less time to use reason to talk yourself out of it. Nature of the beast.

And what makes you think that criminals won't just adapt to the fact that everyone has a gun? If its known that anyone you attack might have a gun, then killings will just happen at more of a distance and without giving your victim time to think about whats happening.

To conclude, I'd rather be killed than kill. I know it sounds ridiculous, and I know that only a small percentage of people think like this, but that isn't something I could have on my mind and live with anyways. I also know that there is something to look forward to beyond this life.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
I think Adam made a better point than you think.

No guns= less killing

If you're going to tell me that there would be just as much murder if guns were not introduced into the world, then I'd say your logic went off to left field somewhere. And I think that the very fact that guns make it easier to kill makes it impossible to conclude that guns are civilization, given what evil can be done with them.

As you say, we take out guns and we're left with knives, stick, stones etc. Consider for a moment how much more effort it takes to do damage with one of these items than it does to use a gun. Also, someone is much more likely to be able to fight back if a person has to get up close, or at least closer, if attacked with any of those items. Does this mean we would be better of without each of these, because they can be used to kill as well? Obviously not, given what other uses they have. A gun only has one use: to cause physical harm. But I digress, because in all of this I am assuming that guns were never created.

So to your points, in a world where guns already exist.

Firstly, its not surprising that some Cops would think that arming everyone would cause less violence. They are armed, and usually they are armed for defensive reasons. So their logic is obviously that guns make for good self- defense.

And your logic saying that arming everyone would have similar results as the Cold War doesn't really work. Consider; the Russians and American government were worried about preserving a country, and therefore less likely to release a preemptive strike given the consequences. A person seeing that someone may be coming after them and acting preemptively is much more likely, because they are protecting and only thinking about themselves.

Also, neither of the countries had a clear cut advantage in the arms race, but only because they had no means to set themselves apart. People with guns are different. Some people are much more proficient with a firearm than others, and therefore have an advantage. The simple truch is that people with a gun aren't always just set on self preservation. There is a darkness in everyone, and by arming more people you are giving them better access to act on that darkness. I think that there are people who would kill if they had better access to do so, and therefore less time to use reason to talk yourself out of it. Nature of the beast.

And what makes you think that criminals won't just adapt to the fact that everyone has a gun? If its known that anyone you attack might have a gun, then killings will just happen at more of a distance and without giving your victim time to think about whats happening.

To conclude, I'd rather be killed than kill. I know it sounds ridiculous, and I know that only a small percentage of people think like this, but that isn't something I could have on my mind and live with anyways. I also know that there is something to look forward to beyond this life.
I think RIGHT feild would be more appropraite;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
I think the invention of the gun was just an evolution of every other thing along the line that produces death. It could be the death of an animal food source or it could be the death of your attacker.

Firearms in general are inanimate objects without feelings. It's the act and intention of the person using it that needs to be addressed. This is why I laugh every time I hear Barak Obama open his mouth. He is now pushing for a nation wide ban on all assault weapons because of the number of kids killed in US cities...my question is, how many of those kids were killed with "assault weapons?" The problem isn't the firearms, is the lack of education, the lack of initiative among the majority of the poor people to do better, it's drug trafficking, and general poverty. He also said recently that it's a lack of love. Good luck getting a bill passed that imposes love on people.

Without firearms, we'd still have swords, rocks, sticks, spears, knives, etc. Without firearms, we could compare having equal weapons such as two people carrying knives.

I think the guy's logic is very good and very clear. He makes a point that having two very unequal opponents in size and physical ability become equal by the use and deployment of a firearm.

I think in a society where everyone was equally armed, we'd see much less violence. There are officers high up in their ranking in LA that feel more people carrying guns (legally armed citizens carrying for the purpose of self defense) would lower violence because the criminals would eventually get the point that more and more of their targets are going to put up resistance.

A person who is carrying a firearm as a form of self defense to keep up with the number of criminals who are committing crimes with firearms is comparable to the arms race of the Cold War. Seeing how we were fairly evenly matched in nukes, we knew how devastating the result would be should they ever be deployed. I think the same follows for regular citizens arming themselves against criminals. The idea is to stay alive, not look for a fight or a conflict. We're not talking about vigilantism here, just staying alive.

I understand where the guy is coming from that if you can match force for force, you take away your enemy or opponent's ability to get an advantage on you.

This is all theoretical due to the fact that concealed carrying means that your attacker wouldn't know you're carrying until you drew down on him/her and at that point, you more than likely will be doing society a favor by adding a douse of chlorine to gene pool.
I think Adam made a better point than you think.

No guns= less killing

If you're going to tell me that there would be just as much murder if guns were not introduced into the world, then I'd say your logic went off to left field somewhere. And I think that the very fact that guns make it easier to kill makes it impossible to conclude that guns are civilization, given what evil can be done with them.

As you say, we take out guns and we're left with knives, stick, stones etc. Consider for a moment how much more effort it takes to do damage with one of these items than it does to use a gun. Also, someone is much more likely to be able to fight back if a person has to get up close, or at least closer, if attacked with any of those items. Does this mean we would be better of without each of these, because they can be used to kill as well? Obviously not, given what other uses they have. A gun only has one use: to cause physical harm. But I digress, because in all of this I am assuming that guns were never created.

So to your points, in a world where guns already exist.

Firstly, its not surprising that some Cops would think that arming everyone would cause less violence. They are armed, and usually they are armed for defensive reasons. So their logic is obviously that guns make for good self- defense.

And your logic saying that arming everyone would have similar results as the Cold War doesn't really work. Consider; the Russians and American government were worried about preserving a country, and therefore less likely to release a preemptive strike given the consequences. A person seeing that someone may be coming after them and acting preemptively is much more likely, because they are protecting and only thinking about themselves.

Also, neither of the countries had a clear cut advantage in the arms race, but only because they had no means to set themselves apart. People with guns are different. Some people are much more proficient with a firearm than others, and therefore have an advantage. The simple truch is that people with a gun aren't always just set on self preservation. There is a darkness in everyone, and by arming more people you are giving them better access to act on that darkness. I think that there are people who would kill if they had better access to do so, and therefore less time to use reason to talk yourself out of it. Nature of the beast.

And what makes you think that criminals won't just adapt to the fact that everyone has a gun? If its known that anyone you attack might have a gun, then killings will just happen at more of a distance and without giving your victim time to think about whats happening.

To conclude, I'd rather be killed than kill. I know it sounds ridiculous, and I know that only a small percentage of people think like this, but that isn't something I could have on my mind and live with anyways. I also know that there is something to look forward to beyond this life.
I think RIGHT feild would be more appropraite;)
You quoted my entire post just to make that point? What a waste of space. :wink
I agree.



































:git:
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I think Adam made a better point than you think.

No guns= less killing

If you're going to tell me that there would be just as much murder if guns were not introduced into the world, then I'd say your logic went off to left field somewhere. And I think that the very fact that guns make it easier to kill makes it impossible to conclude that guns are civilization, given what evil can be done with them.

As you say, we take out guns and we're left with knives, stick, stones etc. Consider for a moment how much more effort it takes to do damage with one of these items than it does to use a gun. Also, someone is much more likely to be able to fight back if a person has to get up close, or at least closer, if attacked with any of those items. Does this mean we would be better of without each of these, because they can be used to kill as well? Obviously not, given what other uses they have. A gun only has one use: to cause physical harm. But I digress, because in all of this I am assuming that guns were never created.

So to your points, in a world where guns already exist.

Firstly, its not surprising that some Cops would think that arming everyone would cause less violence. They are armed, and usually they are armed for defensive reasons. So their logic is obviously that guns make for good self- defense.

And your logic saying that arming everyone would have similar results as the Cold War doesn't really work. Consider; the Russians and American government were worried about preserving a country, and therefore less likely to release a preemptive strike given the consequences. A person seeing that someone may be coming after them and acting preemptively is much more likely, because they are protecting and only thinking about themselves.

Also, neither of the countries had a clear cut advantage in the arms race, but only because they had no means to set themselves apart. People with guns are different. Some people are much more proficient with a firearm than others, and therefore have an advantage. The simple truch is that people with a gun aren't always just set on self preservation. There is a darkness in everyone, and by arming more people you are giving them better access to act on that darkness. I think that there are people who would kill if they had better access to do so, and therefore less time to use reason to talk yourself out of it. Nature of the beast.

And what makes you think that criminals won't just adapt to the fact that everyone has a gun? If its known that anyone you attack might have a gun, then killings will just happen at more of a distance and without giving your victim time to think about whats happening.

To conclude, I'd rather be killed than kill. I know it sounds ridiculous, and I know that only a small percentage of people think like this, but that isn't something I could have on my mind and live with anyways. I also know that there is something to look forward to beyond this life.
I can see where you're going with some of that. I think with practice, the only advantage an attacker would have on well-trained citizen would be surprise, and when you are alert and pay attention to your surroundings, I think even that it minimized.

I see what you're saying about the guilt of killing someone, and that you know there is something to look forward after life on earth. I can't say I wouldn't have feelings of guilt, I don't know, I would like to think not since I'm protecting myself or my family, but I've never taken a life and I don't intend to and I hope I'm never faced with that situation. However, I'd rather live and be not dead than be killed. If the time comes, my first instinct and training says to escape and stay alive if you can before attempting to participate in a gun fight. So, using deadly force is an absolute last option.

I can't say that I'd let someone kill me for two reasons, it's natural instinct to fight for survival and I don't think I could justify letting someone kill me and leaving my wife alone when I have a chance to preserve my own life. Maybe that's selfish, maybe not.

All I know is that lethal force and self-defense are talked about in the same book we read.

About the Cold War, the key word there was preservation. I want to preserve my own life. I see what you're saying about the lack of global consequences, but I think if two people both know the other is armed, there is less of a chance of conflict. If conflict is unavoidable and I'm facing severe bodily injury or death, I'm going to do everything I can to survive.

I wasn't just thinking along the lines of killing, I was thinking about crime in general. I don't think less guns = less crime. Homicides, probably right, there'd be fewer of them. But then again, Chicago and Washington, DC have total gun bans and they still have really high crime rates and homicide rates. That's the problem with gun bans, they don't work on criminals. I think there would be equal to or even more crime should all firearms be taken away from all people (including criminals).

That's the tricky area on the subject of gun bans...do we want to ban guns as a whole and do everything we can to keep them out of everyone's hands to reduce homicides while at the same time seeing skyrocketing increases in other crimes? The UK has seen a decrease in homicides, but robberies and home invasions have steadily been on the rise. There was also an article about the rise in the use of swords...seems strange to me.

Adapting to everyone having a gun:
Well, accurate handgun shooting beyond 7 - 10 yards requires extensive practice, something you usually don't see from your average street thug. I also doubt that we'd see more instances of sniper-type crimes either. I don't know what would happen, we won't see the majority of people carry a gun, so we'll never know. There are isolated instances where the majority of people do carry:

Gun Town

Kennesaw, has the nickname of "Gun Town, USA" due to a city ordinance passed in 1982 [Sec 34-1a] that requires every head of household to maintain a firearm with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.

Reports of resulting burglary rate statistics

Gary Kleck, a criminologist and gun-control critic attributes a drop of 89% in the residential burglary rate to the law.[1] Kennesaw is often cited by advocates of gun ownership as evidence that gun ownership deters crime. (see, for instance, this 2004 sheet of talking points from the Gun Owners Foundation).

Current statistics indicate that Kennesaw's crime rate[3] is definitely lower compared to surrounding cities like Marietta[4], Smyrna[5], Alpharetta[6], or Atlanta[7].
from wikipedia.

A gun's only use is to cause physical harm:
Can't the same be said about the bow and arrow, the spear, or the sword?

I think evil is present no matter what, and people who have evil intentions will use whatever is available to achieve their goals. I don't think blaming the tool is the solution. I think blaming the operator of the tool. How many people have been killed by drunk drivers? It wasn't the car's fault.

I think the cops see armed citizens with two positives: they can deter crime for one, secondly, should they be successful in protecting themselves with lethal force, you have one less criminal on the streets attempting to harm the next unlucky person. You also see fewer victims which is the most important goal.

My practice, accuracy, and training is my advantage. I want ever advantage I can get over an attacker. I want to fight to be as unfair as possible with the advantage being on my side. My use of a firearm for self defense is just a refusal to be a victim. Personally, I would prefer a gun fight over a knife fight because you do have to be at arm's length to fight. A gun fight allows you to take cover and hopefully use that cover to escape the situation safely. I suppose what it comes down to is that we all have a choice to make...either take responsibility for your own safety and protection, or, take that gamble that anytime you need police intervention to save you or your family from whatever situation it is, that they're already close by and can respond quickly.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
I can see where you're going with some of that. I think with practice, the only advantage an attacker would have on well-trained citizen would be surprise, and when you are alert and pay attention to your surroundings, I think even that it minimized.
So we have to be constantly afraid of being attacked? I'm sorry, but that doesn't appeal to me. Of course, I'm a small town kid, I don't know what it's like to live in a city or in a slum where gun violence is a problem.

I see what you're saying about the guilt of killing someone, and that you know there is something to look forward after life on earth. I can't say I wouldn't have feelings of guilt, I don't know, I would like to think not since I'm protecting myself or my family, but I've never taken a life and I don't intend to and I hope I'm never faced with that situation. However, I'd rather live and be not dead than be killed. If the time comes, my first instinct and training says to escape and stay alive if you can before attempting to participate in a gun fight. So, using deadly force is an absolute last option.

I can't say that I'd let someone kill me for two reasons, it's natural instinct to fight for survival and I don't think I could justify letting someone kill me and leaving my wife alone when I have a chance to preserve my own life. Maybe that's selfish, maybe not.

All I know is that lethal force and self-defense are talked about in the same book we read.
I don't have a family of my own yet, but you are right, in the case of protecting my parents or siblings, I would use deadly force if necessary. I was more talking about someone attacking me individually.
About the Cold War, the key word there was preservation. I want to preserve my own life. I see what you're saying about the lack of global consequences, but I think if two people both know the other is armed, there is less of a chance of conflict. If conflict is unavoidable and I'm facing severe bodily injury or death, I'm going to do everything I can to survive.
Preservation, I think, should be more about disarming other people than arming yourself, morally speaking. But thats dependant on whether you're talking about self preservation or preservation of life in general. Its counterproductive to use weapons to counteract other weapons effects, in my opinion. Just seems like it makes living more dangerous, rather than the opposite.
I wasn't just thinking along the lines of killing, I was thinking about crime in general. I don't think less guns = less crime. Homicides, probably right, there'd be fewer of them. But then again, Chicago and Washington, DC have total gun bans and they still have really high crime rates and homicide rates. That's the problem with gun bans, they don't work on criminals. I think there would be equal to or even more crime should all firearms be taken away from all people (including criminals).

That's the tricky area on the subject of gun bans...do we want to ban guns as a whole and do everything we can to keep them out of everyone's hands to reduce homicides while at the same time seeing skyrocketing increases in other crimes? The UK has seen a decrease in homicides, but robberies and home invasions have steadily been on the rise. There was also an article about the rise in the use of swords...seems strange to me.
Crime is easier for me to swallow than homicide. Losing a TV is preferable to losing your life.

And an increase in sword use is definitely strange. But I don't think its conclusive that that is in direct correlation with the restriction of handguns.
Adapting to everyone having a gun:
Well, accurate handgun shooting beyond 7 - 10 yards requires extensive practice, something you usually don't see from your average street thug. I also doubt that we'd see more instances of sniper-type crimes either.
Sniper crime wasn't what I was getting at. And criminals would adapt, in whatever way they can. But that would be the case with removing guns as well.

I don't know what would happen, we won't see the majority of people carry a gun, so we'll never know. There are isolated instances where the majority of people do carry:
Interesting situation, but I do believe that one town with that kind of rule is different than having an entire country living in the same situation.
A gun's only use is to cause physical harm:
Can't the same be said about the bow and arrow, the spear, or the sword?
I'm not going to argue against that, but you don't see people using those things nearly as often as you see people using a gun, do you? Also, it takes much more practice and skill to become proficient with those things than it does with a gun. The gun just makes killing easier.
I think evil is present no matter what, and people who have evil intentions will use whatever is available to achieve their goals. I don't think blaming the tool is the solution. I think blaming the operator of the tool. How many people have been killed by drunk drivers? It wasn't the car's fault.
I agree, but a gun is used perposefully and only to kill or injure, outside of a shooting gallery. Not usually the case for cars. Again, a gun just makes caring out evil much easier.
I think the cops see armed citizens with two positives: they can deter crime for one, secondly, should they be successful in protecting themselves with lethal force, you have one less criminal on the streets attempting to harm the next unlucky person. You also see fewer victims which is the most important goal.
I agree, and I know of cases where people in Canada do not act as maybe they should to defend other people because they are afraid of the punishment if they do. It just seems to me that killing would be more of an impulse than it is now, and as we all know, acting on your first impulse is not always the best idea. I know its hard to accept, but not everyone would be as responsible as you may be with a gun. :wink
My practice, accuracy, and training is my advantage. I want ever advantage I can get over an attacker. I want to fight to be as unfair as possible with the advantage being on my side. My use of a firearm for self defense is just a refusal to be a victim. Personally, I would prefer a gun fight over a knife fight because you do have to be at arm's length to fight. A gun fight allows you to take cover and hopefully use that cover to escape the situation safely. I suppose what it comes down to is that we all have a choice to make...either take responsibility for your own safety and protection, or, take that gamble that anytime you need police intervention to save you or your family from whatever situation it is, that they're already close by and can respond quickly.
Practice and training always give people an advantage, but training everyone in the use of a firearm isn't a cheap idea, especially in a country of 300+ million people. Then even if you do train everyone, someone is still going to be better than others, given natural ability.

I don't worry about safety or protection where I live. Clearly we are in different situations and mindsets, and the fact that you have to worry so much about "preservation" is a reflection on the poor condition of our society. Wouldn't it be great if every problem had a simple solution....
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
So we have to be constantly afraid of being attacked? I'm sorry, but that doesn't appeal to me. Of course, I'm a small town kid, I don't know what it's like to live in a city or in a slum where gun violence is a problem.
I don't live in fear or afraid of being attacked. I'd say I'm observant of things happening around me. I just pay attention to things. It's not fear.

I don't have a family of my own yet, but you are right, in the case of protecting my parents or siblings, I would use deadly force if necessary. I was more talking about someone attacking me individually.
I can understand where you're coming from, but I'd protect myself too. I also would try to help others in need. I'm not talking about two idiots in a fist fight, that's a call to the cops. I'm talking about hearing a woman screaming for help in an alley, or seeing someone holding up a gas station with a gun and I'm one of the people in the store. I'm not going to try to be a hero, but I'd rather see a dead criminal than a dead innocent person just living life or working a job.

Preservation, I think, should be more about disarming other people than arming yourself, morally speaking. But thats dependant on whether you're talking about self preservation or preservation of life in general. Its counterproductive to use weapons to counteract other weapons effects, in my opinion. Just seems like it makes living more dangerous, rather than the opposite.
Well, self-preservation and the preservation of those not committing crimes I should say. The thing about disarmament, it's a good idea in principle, but it's been proven over and over again that criminals don't obey gun bans or gun control laws. So, there really isn't a way in the world we live in today to totally disarm. Not that I'd support that anyway, I enjoy shooting too much, but if I was guaranteed to be safe 100% of the time in all places, I'd have much less of a need for a measure of self-defense above and beyond pepper spray and a cell phone.

Crime is easier for me to swallow than homicide. Losing a TV is preferable to losing your life.
What about being beaten for your wallet? What about rape? What about being carjacked? What about arson? Or kidnapping?

And an increase in sword use is definitely strange. But I don't think its conclusive that that is in direct correlation with the restriction of handguns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/4788881.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/05/nsamurai105.xml

Sniper crime wasn't what I was getting at. And criminals would adapt, in whatever way they can. But that would be the case with removing guns as well.
I guess you'll have to explain that more for me.

Interesting situation, but I do believe that one town with that kind of rule is different than having an entire country living in the same situation.
I guess if it works in one town, I'm an optimistic, it could work in any town.

I'm not going to argue against that, but you don't see people using those things nearly as often as you see people using a gun, do you? Also, it takes much more practice and skill to become proficient with those things than it does with a gun. The gun just makes killing easier.
I was just using the same logic you proposed about their use and purpose. No you don't see archery related crimes, but there are more knife crimes than gun crimes. It's also been proven by the FBI that knife wounds more often are fatal than gun shot wounds.

Since I can't figure out how to embed video, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dUSqE9TDhg

I agree, but a gun is used perposefully and only to kill or injure, outside of a shooting gallery. Not usually the case for cars. Again, a gun just makes caring out evil much easier.
It does make it easier, but after guns are gone, and criminals adapt, just like they'd adapt to everyone carrying a gun, what then becomes their weapon of choice?

Knives, just like in the UK... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/433/433we04.htm

I agree, and I know of cases where people in Canada do not act as maybe they should to defend other people because they are afraid of the punishment if they do. It just seems to me that killing would be more of an impulse than it is now, and as we all know, acting on your first impulse is not always the best idea. I know its hard to accept, but not everyone would be as responsible as you may be with a gun. :wink
There are lots of reasons why I think it should be mandatory to take self-defense and shooting courses as well as education about the law before being allowed to even apply for a permit. I also think there are quite a few people who wouldn't be able to handle the responsibilities that accompany carrying a firearm.

Practice and training always give people an advantage, but training everyone in the use of a firearm isn't a cheap idea, especially in a country of 300+ million people. Then even if you do train everyone, someone is still going to be better than others, given natural ability.
All I can say is that the training would be self-funded like it is now. If I want to take a course, I have to shell out the couple hundred dollars for an extensive course.

I don't worry about safety or protection where I live. Clearly we are in different situations and mindsets, and the fact that you have to worry so much about "preservation" is a reflection on the poor condition of our society. Wouldn't it be great if every problem had a simple solution....
Crime happens everywhere. The Dakotas are much more rural than just about everywhere on the East coast. It's not that I worry every day, it's just like the boy scouts' motto: be prepared. I agree the our society is in somewhat of a tailspin over drugs/crime/unemployment/welfare/etc. but those are things that neither you nor I alone will solve. I don't live in fear at all. I live by faith, but at the same time, I'm also prepared to deal as best I can with whatever situation arises, should something happen.


I think guns are a necessary evil when it comes to self-defense and protection. They're the only option for maintaining order or restoring it against those who want to do violent crimes. I don't see how without the advantage of superior firepower and superior training the police, military, or average citizen is to be able to deal with attacks and crime.

By the way, I'm enjoying this conversation and would have a great time having a beer while having this chat with you.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
I don't live in fear or afraid of being attacked. I'd say I'm observant of things happening around me. I just pay attention to things. It's not fear.
For many people it would be defined as fear, and if they are not fearful, then they are not perseptive enough to save their life.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I'd protect myself too. I also would try to help others in need. I'm not talking about two idiots in a fist fight, that's a call to the cops. I'm talking about hearing a woman screaming for help in an alley, or seeing someone holding up a gas station with a gun and I'm one of the people in the store. I'm not going to try to be a hero, but I'd rather see a dead criminal than a dead innocent person just living life or working a job.
And what happens when you intervene in a situation you didn't have a right to intervene in? What if you make a bad judgement call, when better alternatives are available? But if I had a gun and saw someone being raped or mugged (which isn't likely, given that rapists and muggers tend to do their rotten tasks while noone else is around), I'd shoot them too. But then whose to say they don't notice you first, and being more skilled than you (again, another possibility) and shoots you first? At least you went down trying? Difficult situation to be in, but its a risk whether you have a gun or not.

Well, self-preservation and the preservation of those not committing crimes I should say. The thing about disarmament, it's a good idea in principle, but it's been proven over and over again that criminals don't obey gun bans or gun control laws. So, there really isn't a way in the world we live in today to totally disarm. Not that I'd support that anyway, I enjoy shooting too much, but if I was guaranteed to be safe 100% of the time in all places, I'd have much less of a need for a measure of self-defense above and beyond pepper spray and a cell phone.
No kidding criminals don't obey gun laws, thats part of why they're criminals, but by having everyone carry a gun, you're giving everyone the opportunity to be a criminal. And I wouldn't advocate total disarmament either, I'm just not a big fan of everyone having a gun. The thought gives me the chills.

What about being beaten for your wallet? What about rape? What about being carjacked? What about arson? Or kidnapping?
The only things there I would consider worse than death is rape and someone kidnapping my kid. The other things can happen whether or not someone has a gun. Someone can jump me before I have the chance to reach for my gun, someone can put a gun to my head and tell me to get out of the car before I could even think to get my gun, and kidnapping is a travesty that can be committed in any situation, unless you're talking about arming children as well. I think there are far too many problems with that idea....
Didn't read the links, sorry, but I don't think its a major part of either of our arguments. I think we can drop the whole sword thing.

I guess you'll have to explain that more for me.
Explain how criminals will adapt? More stealth, better use of the element of surprise, putting a hole through your head before you can think of reaching for your gun, etc. Theft and such may be easier to control, but I think murder would get out of hand.


I guess if it works in one town, I'm an optimistic, it could work in any town.
I'm more of a pessimist. Big city crime has always been different and more frequent than small town crime. I've heard of more murder and theft and such since moving to a bigger city over the last 2 years then I ever heard of when I was living in a small town. So, just because the situation is controlled in a more controlled, isolated environment, doesn't mean that it is also applicable and stable in an environment that is already out of control to start.


I was just using the same logic you proposed about their use and purpose. No you don't see archery related crimes, but there are more knife crimes than gun crimes. It's also been proven by the FBI that knife wounds more often are fatal than gun shot wounds.


Since I can't figure out how to embed video, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dUSqE9TDhg
I'm sorry, but I still don't think that a knife is more proficient tool for killing than a gun. It's easier to block a knife than a bullet.


It does make it easier, but after guns are gone, and criminals adapt, just like they'd adapt to everyone carrying a gun, what then becomes their weapon of choice?

Knives, just like in the UK... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/433/433we04.htm
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/committees/ppr/060914-05-appendix03.pdf


There are lots of reasons why I think it should be mandatory to take self-defense and shooting courses as well as education about the law before being allowed to even apply for a permit. I also think there are quite a few people who wouldn't be able to handle the responsibilities that accompany carrying a firearm.

All I can say is that the training would be self-funded like it is now. If I want to take a course, I have to shell out the couple hundred dollars for an extensive course.
I thought we were talking about arming everyone? So, would it not be exceptionally dangerous to arm someone who cannot handle the resposibility?
And having it self funded is not going to work. You cannot force someone to do something if they cannot afford to pay for it, and do not have the time to take part in it. And what about when someone gets older, and their decision making and reaction time is different? Do we make it like a car liscense, where you have to be tested in order to keep it? And then isn't it counter productive to take away the firearm, since its the disadvantaged that we're trying to protect? It just seems like a big circle to me.



Crime happens everywhere. The Dakotas are much more rural than just about everywhere on the East coast. It's not that I worry every day, it's just like the boy scouts' motto: be prepared. I agree the our society is in somewhat of a tailspin over drugs/crime/unemployment/welfare/etc. but those are things that neither you nor I alone will solve. I don't live in fear at all. I live by faith, but at the same time, I'm also prepared to deal as best I can with whatever situation arises, should something happen.
Crime is not frequent at all where I live. And to me the fact that you feel the need to stay protected indicates that you are living in at least some degree of fear.

I think guns are a necessary evil when it comes to self-defense and protection. They're the only option for maintaining order or restoring it against those who want to do violent crimes. I don't see how without the advantage of superior firepower and superior training the police, military, or average citizen is to be able to deal with attacks and crime.
The decision now is whether or not the average citizen is to be given the same power we give authorities. To me its an unnecessary risk. To you its obviously different, and for me thats easy enough to accept. I'm not an anti-gun fanatic.
By the way, I'm enjoying this conversation and would have a great time having a beer while having this chat with you.
While taking pot shots at a bail of hay? Sounds like a great time to me. :wink
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
For many people it would be defined as fear, and if they are not fearful, then they are not perseptive enough to save their life.
That comes with training.

And what happens when you intervene in a situation you didn't have a right to intervene in? What if you make a bad judgement call, when better alternatives are available? But if I had a gun and saw someone being raped or mugged (which isn't likely, given that rapists and muggers tend to do their rotten tasks while noone else is around), I'd shoot them too. But then whose to say they don't notice you first, and being more skilled than you (again, another possibility) and shoots you first? At least you went down trying? Difficult situation to be in, but its a risk whether you have a gun or not.
Again, training and education about the law is vital. I hope I'm never faced with a situation where lethal force is necessary to save myself, my family, or anyone else.

No kidding criminals don't obey gun laws, thats part of why they're criminals, but by having everyone carry a gun, you're giving everyone the opportunity to be a criminal. And I wouldn't advocate total disarmament either, I'm just not a big fan of everyone having a gun. The thought gives me the chills.
I don't want everyone to have firearms either, but you're seeing the idea here that banning all firearms is not the idea. Barak Osama is proposing a ban of all semi automatic firearms, hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, sporting rifles, the pistols and rifles used in the Olympics, all of them. Billary isn't any better of an option when it comes to attacking our freedoms.

I don't think everyone should have a firearm, those who've committed certain crimes or aren't mentally stable. But at the same time, I also don't think that someone should be denied the right to own or carry a firearm if there is no reason that he shouldn't. The citizens of Wisconsin and the majority of Illinois, all of those in Chicago are currently denied that right. As are the citizens of this great nation's capitol. Gun bans don't stop gun crimes. Plain and simple.


The only things there I would consider worse than death is rape and someone kidnapping my kid. The other things can happen whether or not someone has a gun. Someone can jump me before I have the chance to reach for my gun, someone can put a gun to my head and tell me to get out of the car before I could even think to get my gun, and kidnapping is a travesty that can be committed in any situation, unless you're talking about arming children as well. I think there are far too many problems with that idea....
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not suggesting that carrying a firearm will prevent or stop all crime from happening. But in the hands of someone who is trained to use it, it can significantly reduce the exposure to becoming a victim.

Didn't read the links, sorry, but I don't think its a major part of either of our arguments. I think we can drop the whole sword thing.
It's not all about swords, it's about edge weapons, knives, etc. They're incredibly lethal.

Explain how criminals will adapt? More stealth, better use of the element of surprise, putting a hole through your head before you can think of reaching for your gun, etc. Theft and such may be easier to control, but I think murder would get out of hand.
I'm just saying that criminals will adapt to any situation, everyone carrying guns or no one carrying guns whatsoever. I don't know how they'll adapt, but we both know they will, regardless of the situation.

I'm more of a pessimist. Big city crime has always been different and more frequent than small town crime. I've heard of more murder and theft and such since moving to a bigger city over the last 2 years then I ever heard of when I was living in a small town. So, just because the situation is controlled in a more controlled, isolated environment, doesn't mean that it is also applicable and stable in an environment that is already out of control to start.
It depends on the surrounding geography. I live in a small town, but there is a major highway 1.1 miles from my house that is a major drug route between New York and everything between and beyond Baltimore, MD.

I'm sorry, but I still don't think that a knife is more proficient tool for killing than a gun. It's easier to block a knife than a bullet.
Only if you're trained in hand to hand combat against edged weapons. Google it, find the stats. I'll see if I can find them on how knife wounds are significantly less survivable than bullet wounds. We're talking about body shots, not head shots. That's common sense.

I thought we were talking about arming everyone? So, would it not be exceptionally dangerous to arm someone who cannot handle the resposibility?
And having it self funded is not going to work. You cannot force someone to do something if they cannot afford to pay for it, and do not have the time to take part in it. And what about when someone gets older, and their decision making and reaction time is different? Do we make it like a car liscense, where you have to be tested in order to keep it? And then isn't it counter productive to take away the firearm, since its the disadvantaged that we're trying to protect? It just seems like a big circle to me.
I was suggesting arming those who are willing to take the training and qualify through shooting skills, classroom time, and education about the legality of lethal force. I'm only talking about arming those who choose to be armed and those that are able to pass the qualifications. I was only talking about choice. Just like the town in GA, you can be exempt if you conscientiously object or cannot afford it. In the US, you don't have to requalify to have a driver's license (which I disagree with...I think displaying you are still capable of operating a motor vehicle is a good thing.) I don't want to risk the safety of the general public by arming those who don't want to participate or those who cannot demonstrate the ability to pass the qualifications and skill set required just like police officers must do.

Crime is not frequent at all where I live. And to me the fact that you feel the need to stay protected indicates that you are living in at least some degree of fear.
I don't live in fear, at all. I live in reality that crime exists everywhere. I also live in a world where crime is relatively unpredictable. It's reality, not fear. I understand that things happen around me and I'm prepared to deal with it should those things happen too close to me or my family. It's preparedness. Just like you hope to God you never need your smoke alarms, you still change the batteries when they chirp. You know that you can swim, but there are times when boating or skiing or whatever that you wear a life jacket. Just like most of us are healthy and go to the doctor's office very rarely, we still pay for medical insurance every month to protect against that liability. It's not fear, it's being prepared to deal with something that happens daily. It just doesn't happen daily to everyone. Hopefully I'm never involved, but should I be, I will be as best prepared as I can. Buying insurance is just like training in self defense, it's balancing risk. We don't expect to need it, but it's there to protect what's dear to us.

The decision now is whether or not the average citizen is to be given the same power we give authorities. To me its an unnecessary risk. To you its obviously different, and for me thats easy enough to accept. I'm not an anti-gun fanatic.
I never suggested that we as regular citizens act as law enforcement officers and enforce the law. That's vigilantism and it's illegal in most places. I am only suggesting that people take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. As a man of God, you're charged by the Bible, as the husband and head of your household to protect your family when you do have one.

While taking pot shots at a bail of hay? Sounds like a great time to me. :wink
A game of horseshoes would be great right now.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,519 Posts
Again, training and education about the law is vital. I hope I'm never faced with a situation where lethal force is necessary to save myself, my family, or anyone else.
I'm not sure that just because people get trained in the use of a firearm, they are always fit to use one. Its similar to a drivers liscense: you might be allowed to drive a car, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should be. People become reckless once they are done with training, I'm sure you understand that. Recklessness often leads to serious injury when we're dealing with such deadly tools.

I don't want everyone to have firearms either, but you're seeing the idea here that banning all firearms is not the idea. Barak Osama is proposing a ban of all semi automatic firearms, hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns, sporting rifles, the pistols and rifles used in the Olympics, all of them. Billary isn't any better of an option when it comes to attacking our freedoms.

I don't think everyone should have a firearm, those who've committed certain crimes or aren't mentally stable. But at the same time, I also don't think that someone should be denied the right to own or carry a firearm if there is no reason that he shouldn't. The citizens of Wisconsin and the majority of Illinois, all of those in Chicago are currently denied that right. As are the citizens of this great nation's capitol. Gun bans don't stop gun crimes. Plain and simple.
So who gets a gun and who doesn't? I think the testing should be extensive and the amount of people who carry hand guns limited. Banning semi-automatics and handguns may not be a great idea, but to me limiting them is. You keep talking about how taking away your gun is limiting your rights. Well, you may see it as your right to self preservation, but there are people who see it as any easy way to gain access to a deadly weapon. You'll notice I say EASY access, and I think if you make the access DIFFICULT, then it deters a good number of people from committing the crime they are thinking of. I'm not proposing a ban on hand guns, just better regulation. I wouldn't mind a blanket ban on semi-automatics.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm not suggesting that carrying a firearm will prevent or stop all crime from happening. But in the hands of someone who is trained to use it, it can significantly reduce the exposure to becoming a victim.
Then training must be extensive, and tests hard to pass. You can't make something like a hand gun so easy to obtain and use. I do think that Canada has good rules when it comes to hand guns, but they are overly stict with hunting riffles and shot guns. By Canadian law, I have a pellet gun thats suppose to be registered.... I mean come on, its a damn pellet gun.


It's not all about swords, it's about edge weapons, knives, etc. They're incredibly lethal.
In the hands of someone that knows how to use it. Are you really trying to argue that knives are more lethal than guns?

I'm just saying that criminals will adapt to any situation, everyone carrying guns or no one carrying guns whatsoever. I don't know how they'll adapt, but we both know they will, regardless of the situation.
Yup, I do know they will, because murder still happens in Canada despite their strict gun policies. But gun violence here is much lower per capita here than in the USA. I like to think that that indicates stronger gun regulations make for less gun violence.

It depends on the surrounding geography. I live in a small town, but there is a major highway 1.1 miles from my house that is a major drug route between New York and everything between and beyond Baltimore, MD.
I'm not sure what the point is here, sorry.

Only if you're trained in hand to hand combat against edged weapons. Google it, find the stats. I'll see if I can find them on how knife wounds are significantly less survivable than bullet wounds. We're talking about body shots, not head shots. That's common sense.
Blocking a knife by throwing out your arm is much easier to block than a bullet shot from a slight distance away. And you can run from a knife, but its much harder to run from a bullet.

I was suggesting arming those who are willing to take the training and qualify through shooting skills, classroom time, and education about the legality of lethal force. I'm only talking about arming those who choose to be armed and those that are able to pass the qualifications. I was only talking about choice. Just like the town in GA, you can be exempt if you conscientiously object or cannot afford it. In the US, you don't have to requalify to have a driver's license (which I disagree with...I think displaying you are still capable of operating a motor vehicle is a good thing.) I don't want to risk the safety of the general public by arming those who don't want to participate or those who cannot demonstrate the ability to pass the qualifications and skill set required just like police officers must do.
Then we agree, but these tests have to make it so that only capable people are using these guns. And having to put yourself under scrutiny to allow you to continue to shoot the gun is then necessary as well, to ensure that you haven't become reckless. From there, so many precautions are necessary.


I don't live in fear, at all. I live in reality that crime exists everywhere. I also live in a world where crime is relatively unpredictable. It's reality, not fear. I understand that things happen around me and I'm prepared to deal with it should those things happen too close to me or my family. It's preparedness. Just like you hope to God you never need your smoke alarms, you still change the batteries when they chirp. You know that you can swim, but there are times when boating or skiing or whatever that you wear a life jacket. Just like most of us are healthy and go to the doctor's office very rarely, we still pay for medical insurance every month to protect against that liability. It's not fear, it's being prepared to deal with something that happens daily. It just doesn't happen daily to everyone. Hopefully I'm never involved, but should I be, I will be as best prepared as I can. Buying insurance is just like training in self defense, it's balancing risk. We don't expect to need it, but it's there to protect what's dear to us.
To me you're now defining fear as reality. We do those things in fear of the consequences if we do not. Its all a matter of perspective.

I never suggested that we as regular citizens act as law enforcement officers and enforce the law. That's vigilantism and it's illegal in most places. I am only suggesting that people take responsibility for their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. As a man of God, you're charged by the Bible, as the husband and head of your household to protect your family when you do have one.
But isn't interfering in a robbery or a mugging enforcing the law? I don't really feel its necessary to argue against this, because I mostly agree that in the case of defending an innocent person this kind of force is sometimes necessary, I just don't think its a good enough reason to allow so many people to arm themselves. And please don't throw that bit about being a man of God at me. I would defend my family with my life, but at the same time I hate to think what might happen if I pull a gun on someone. If I have easy access to a gun, the person threatening my family more than likely does as well, and is using that as means to put fear into us. If a person was holding me at gun point, I would tell him to take what he wants, even if I had a gun in my belt. Once that person turns to harm my family... self preservation becomes a side point, and having a gun would be a welcomed luxury, as long as I'm trained in some way to defend properly. And I still dont think I'd shoot to kill at first.


A game of horseshoes would be great right now.
That it would be. :)
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I'm not sure that just because people get trained in the use of a firearm, they are always fit to use one. Its similar to a drivers liscense: you might be allowed to drive a car, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should be. People become reckless once they are done with training, I'm sure you understand that. Recklessness often leads to serious injury when we're dealing with such deadly tools.
I understand that. But who passes their driver's license road test and then is denied a driver's license?

So who gets a gun and who doesn't? I think the testing should be extensive and the amount of people who carry hand guns limited. Banning semi-automatics and handguns may not be a great idea, but to me limiting them is. You keep talking about how taking away your gun is limiting your rights. Well, you may see it as your right to self preservation, but there are people who see it as any easy way to gain access to a deadly weapon. You'll notice I say EASY access, and I think if you make the access DIFFICULT, then it deters a good number of people from committing the crime they are thinking of. I'm not proposing a ban on hand guns, just better regulation. I wouldn't mind a blanket ban on semi-automatics.
For the concealed carry permits, Pennsylvania is a "shall issue" state, meaning that once you complete the necessary requirements, as long as there is no reason not to issue the permit, PA must issue one. There are states like NJ that are "may issue" states, that even if you are tip top squeaky clean and want a permit, you've passed all the requirements, you can still be denied that permit. I don't agree with that. If you are physically and mentally capable of doing so, and you've surpasses all requirements, then it should be allowed. The bill of rights and the constitution both include "self-defense" along with all the militia talk about the rights people have with firearms.

Then training must be extensive, and tests hard to pass. You can't make something like a hand gun so easy to obtain and use. I do think that Canada has good rules when it comes to hand guns, but they are overly stict with hunting riffles and shot guns. By Canadian law, I have a pellet gun thats suppose to be registered.... I mean come on, its a damn pellet gun.
It is a pellet gun, but you're living in a society where there is severe gun control and restriction. It's silly to you that you have to register your pellet gun right? For us in the states, it's silly to have to register any gun. The list of registered guns just makes it a shopping list for the day someone attempts to ban all firearms and then they just have to go door to door to pick them up.

Any firearm purchase outside of black powder and muzzleloader requires at the very least a background check. Again, I'm ok with more requirements than that, but that's all PA requires. When I bought my pistol, I went to the shop, paid cash, did the paperwork, they did the background check on my criminal and mental history and when I passed, I picked up my cleaning supplies and walked out the door.

In the hands of someone that knows how to use it. Are you really trying to argue that knives are more lethal than guns?
Guns have the capacity to kill more people. For example, my pistol, with a loaded chamber and magazine carries 14 rounds of .45 ACP. So, with the right shot placement, that's 14 kills. Killing 14 people with a gun is more than likely going to be quicker than doing the same with a knife. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm saying that knife wounds are less survivable than gun shot wounds. I'm talking shots to the body and limbs. It's proven. So, outside of shooting someone in the face, (did you know that not all head shots are lethal?), then yes, a knife is more lethal than a gun. The gun however, gives you the ability to do the damage from a greater distance away. What happens when my magazine is empty for my pistol, I'm out of luck. I knife will go and go and go until it's broken or I don't have the strength to use it anymore.

Yup, I do know they will, because murder still happens in Canada despite their strict gun policies. But gun violence here is much lower per capita here than in the USA. I like to think that that indicates stronger gun regulations make for less gun violence.
I think that has a lot to do with the high poverty levels in the cities in the US and the drugs as well. I think both are significantly worse here.

I'm not sure what the point is here, sorry.
I was saying that small towns, like you said, typically experience less crime, but that also depends on what borders the surrounding areas. I'm only 2 hours from NYC, I'm less than 2 hours from Baltimore and significant volumes of drugs are moved between those two cities along a highway that's only 1.1 miles from my house. Baltimore and NYC have two of the highest murder numbers in the country. Add in that DC is just south of Baltimore and you have a corridor of drug trafficking and three high crime cities. Is it a coincidence that you can't carry a gun at all in NYC, Maryland has some of the worst and most restrictive gun laws, and DC has a gun ban, yet the three of those cities are typically among the worst in the country for crime rates? LA and Chicago are two more cities with virtually no carry permits allowed (LA and California in general) and a complete gun ban (Chicago) and they are also at the top of the crime lists.

Blocking a knife by throwing out your arm is much easier to block than a bullet shot from a slight distance away. And you can run from a knife, but its much harder to run from a bullet.
You're right, but you can try to get cover when you run from the gun. You're right though, but the wounds sustained from a knife generally have a higher chance of being fatal than a gun shot wound.

Then we agree, but these tests have to make it so that only capable people are using these guns. And having to put yourself under scrutiny to allow you to continue to shoot the gun is then necessary as well, to ensure that you haven't become reckless. From there, so many precautions are necessary.
I kind of agree. It a perfect world, I'd say no, it doesn't say in the constitution that we have to submit to qualifications, it just says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but if I am facing either testing or a total ban, I'll give a bit on testing.

Police officers and military personnel are required to qualify with their firearms, and then requalify from time to time. Personally, I don't think the police have enough firearms training. Quite a few police officers can be out shot by regular citizens.

To me you're now defining fear as reality. We do those things in fear of the consequences if we do not. Its all a matter of perspective.
I think it's just an understanding that bad things can happen. You don't run a red light because, for one, it's against the law, but two, it's to protect you and ensure your safety along with the safety of other drivers. You don't jump off your roof because you can break your leg. It's expected that something painful or injury will happen. It's an expectation. In an opposite sense of what I'm saying, you play the lottery, but you just about know that you won't win. You have an ever so slightly small chance of winning, and that's why people play, the reward far outweighs the risk of spending $1. I don't play the lottery because of how bad the odds are and my $1 can go elsewhere. But people wouldn't play the lottery if there wasn't even a chance to win. Ok, now turn that around. Everyday around the country, there are people who are mugged, murdered, rapped, etc. The chances of it happening to me a ever so small because of the size of the population and I do my best to not be in places or situations where my risk is increased. However, I know that the slightest chance still exists for it to happen. So, instead of the $1, I take precautions for my own safety and self defense.

But isn't interfering in a robbery or a mugging enforcing the law? I don't really feel its necessary to argue against this, because I mostly agree that in the case of defending an innocent person this kind of force is sometimes necessary, I just don't think its a good enough reason to allow so many people to arm themselves. And please don't throw that bit about being a man of God at me. I would defend my family with my life, but at the same time I hate to think what might happen if I pull a gun on someone. If I have easy access to a gun, the person threatening my family more than likely does as well, and is using that as means to put fear into us. If a person was holding me at gun point, I would tell him to take what he wants, even if I had a gun in my belt. Once that person turns to harm my family... self preservation becomes a side point, and having a gun would be a welcomed luxury, as long as I'm trained in some way to defend properly. And I still dont think I'd shoot to kill at first.
No, because I'm not arresting, prosecuting, or putting in jail someone who is doing something illegal that has very good potential to harm others.

I wouldn't shoot to kill at first either, there are very specific laws defining when it is and isn't ok to use lethal force. I'm not going to shoot someone for grabbing my TV or even stealing my car. Those are possessions that an insurance check (there's that insurance thing again) will replace. Lethal force is only allowable when you fear great bodily injury or death to yourself or your family. So, if a guy breaks into my house unarmed, and he's in my living room, he's going to be looking at the business end of either a shotgun or my pistol. If he runs, he goes and I give a description to the police. If he charges at me, reaches for something, or does anything threatening, he's down.

I wasn't trying to be offensive or anything with the said responsibilities of defending your family. Sorry, that's not what was meant by that.[/QUOTE]

I think we're a lot closer than we think we are on being in at least somewhat of an agreement. I'm looking forward to the upcoming season to start so there are more things hockey to talk about.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Just took a look at the morning paper while eating some lunch and guess what...another shooting happened in Lancaster, less than 10 miles from where I live. Lancaster is where the shopping centers are, the entertainment stuff, sports teams, etc. etc. etc.

I also go to Lancaster, in the city, for work related stuff.

3 people were shot, non of them have life threatening injuries. So I guess this shows you two things, shootings happen locally, and people don't always die from handgun wounds. There was a guy from Philadelphia who came to Lancaster a few months ago to reconcile with his girlfriend and when things didn't go well, he took out an illegally-obtained 9mm pistol and started shooting. He shot 5 people, 4 were related to the girlfriend, the other was a boy who was the boyfriend of one of the family members. A grandmother and a 2 year-old baby were among the 5. All survived, but another illegally-obtained gun was used in an act of violence.

I don't live in fear of this stuff, but when it starts to happen with some regularity, it's hard not to expect that it will continue to happen and prepare yourself for it.

I live in a small town community...you've heard of the Amish, they drive their horse-drawn buggies past my house. But across the street and towns town a couple houses, there's a house where I am just about positive that's involved in drug dealing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,397 Posts
Some of you might just blow this thread off as another gun thread, but I thought it was an excellent read. What do you think? Is this guy off his rocker?

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
From what your sig says, wouldn't it actually be, for example, a single gay guy versus a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats and guns?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
jtkratzer said:
3 people were shot, non of them have life threatening injuries. So I guess this shows you two things, shootings happen locally, and people don't always die from handgun wounds. .
It could also show that people shouldn't have them.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
From what your sig says, wouldn't it actually be, for example, a single gay guy versus a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats and guns?
That's a matter of watching out for yourself. I don't go alone at night and walk around in the bad parts of Philadelphia.

There is a degree of responsibility and awareness we all must have to take responsibility for our own person protection.

We could all brainstorm and come up with completely crazy situations where even a legally armed citizen is still in trouble.

Example...a legally armed bank customer of the bank that was robbed in the Hollywood Shootout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
It could also show that people shouldn't have them.
Neither should governments. One of the first things both Hitler and Stalin did was to disarm the populace.
 
1 - 20 of 146 Posts
Top