Gun Ownership

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Explain that thought, please.

Ever look into gun laws and Kennesaw, Georgia?

Ever back away from a growling dog, a skunk with it's tail up, a charging bull? No injury may ever occur with any of these, but it provides protection for them. Same way a gun can provide protection for a person IMHO.

Who is out to get you?

 

[BeOfGoodCheer]

Who is out to get you?

Sometimes you never know.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Sometimes you never know.

Paranoia is not a healthy state of mind.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Is it wrong to own a gun?

For hunting and sports: no; for the purpose of shooting fellow people: yes.

I also think it's criminally irresponsable to leave unsecured guns lying around in houses and cars and accessible to unauthorized use, both for children and criminals, who favor stolen guns, which irresponsible ("well regulated..." ) gun-owners make way too easily available for them: a stolen gun is a gun available to a criminal.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I question how much you actually know about proper firearm use if you make statements like this. One of the fundamental rules of guns is that you only fire at something you want dead. If you don't intend to kill then don't take the shot, period.

It was my (apparently poor) attempt at a joke

No, if someone broke into my house, I wouldn't be going for a leg-shot.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nope. But it would help pull in a lot of dishonest people before they hurt someone rather than after.

No it won't, because they don't obey the laws. There are laws against murder, but they still do that. So what's one more law (that they're not going to follow) going to accomplish other than taking something away from the law following citizens?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who is out to get you?

Speaking as a person that was a customer in a gas station when it got held up, I know of 2 people for sure (who were never caught incidently)

I know everyone bring up how statistically unlikely it is, but that's no excuse to be unprepared. If I would have been prepared 7 years ago, that gas station attendant wouldn't have gotten punched in the face several times and had his safe and cash register cleared out while me, my cousin, and the 3 other customers had to hide like weaklings while those 2 peices of human garbage got away free & clear with the money that I'm sure they probably used to buy drugs or something illegal.

Although, there's no way to be sure, 2 other gas stations in a 5 mile radius of the Shell station I was at got hit and one of the attendants got grazed in the shoulder. If it was the same two guys, me being prepared that day could have prevented future crimes.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

No it won't, because they don't obey the laws. There are laws against murder, but they still do that. So what's one more law (that they're not going to follow) going to accomplish other than taking something away from the law following citizens?

Because you can pull someone in and charge them with illegal possession of a weapon before they murder someone. Currently, a childish understanding of an Amendment that is frankly irrelevant in this century anyway means we have to let nutters run around with weapons and wait until someone is dead or seriously injured before locking them up.

And this black and white dichotomy between "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" is nonsense. Studies show the "law abiding majority" is a myth. The majority of adults regularly break, or have broken, the law. Recreational drug use, speeding, tax evasion, petty theft...the majority actually don't abide by the law, only by the laws they agree with.

 

[acropolis]

No it won't, because they don't obey the laws. There are laws against murder, but they still do that. So what's one more law (that they're not going to follow) going to accomplish other than taking something away from the law following citizens?

This is awful logic. People still rape, lets make it legal, yeah. There are decent reasons for keeping guns legal, please use those instead of this weak nonsense.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Because you can pull someone in and charge them with illegal possession of a weapon before they murder someone. Currently, a childish understanding of an Amendment that is frankly irrelevant in this century anyway means we have to let nutters run around with weapons and wait until someone is dead or seriously injured before locking them up.

And this black and white dichotomy between "criminals" and "law abiding citizens" is nonsense. Studies show the "law abiding majority" is a myth. The majority of adults regularly break, or have broken, the law. Recreational drug use, speeding, tax evasion, petty theft...the majority actually don't abide by the law, only by the laws they agree with.

No you can't, we have anti-cocaine laws where it's completely illegal to have it. They can drag them in and change them with posession, right? If that system works, then why is it still on the streets and available?...there goes your theory about how making something illegal magically removes it altogether. The same can be said for alcohol and prostitution. The government tried to outlaw those things, but it didn't work, did it.

If you want to view the constitution as irrelevent in this century, then I guess you're okay with taking away free speech, freedom of petition, and freedom of religion since those were all concepts for our government drafted at the same time by the same people. Don't pick and choose which ones you like, then say that the rest no longer apply to this era.

As far as the "nutters" are concerned, must be lingo I'm not familiar with. You make it sound as if gun owners only own them for their own violent tendancies which simply isn't the case. I notice that when you went on your rant to attempt to debunk the law abiding majority "myth" as you called it, you tossed out a list of offenses that have nothing to do in any way with gun ownership. While you're correct that most people have exceeded the speed limit and tried weed, that hardly supports your argument that everyone who has a gun is itching to kill someone.

What you're saying sounds like typical liberal propaganda to me:
1) Target the group you oppose (in this case gun owners)
2) Find the worst possible person you can that happens to be in that group (in this case people who commit random murder)
3) Proceed to lump everyone in step 1 with step 2
4) Provide irrelevent statistics about completely unrelated crimes
5) Use the Red Herring and Slippery Slope techniques
6) Change the meaning of The Constitution to make it say what you want according to your whims and preferences


Here's the text:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

No where in this text is there a clause that says "until 1950" or "unless a guy on a message board disagrees with it" or "unless .005% of the population doesn't know how to use them responsibly"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is awful logic. People still rape, lets make it legal, yeah. There are decent reasons for keeping guns legal, please use those instead of this weak nonsense.

Apples & Oranges

Rape infringes on the rights of others, gun ownership does not.

I was pointing out that making an anti-gun law isn't going to magically take them off the streets nor would it solve any of the problems that the anti-gun folks are worried about.

You kinda read my post out of context

 

[acropolis]

Apples & Oranges

Rape infringes on the rights of others, gun ownership does not.

I was pointing out that making an anti-gun law isn't going to magically take them off the streets nor would it solve any of the problems that the anti-gun folks are worried about.

You kinda read my post out of context

No kidding it isn't going to be 100% effective. Nor is any law of any kind. That is not justification for not having a law, or else we wouldn't have any laws. Bans don't work by magic, they work by enforcement. The more enforcement, the better the ban.

 

[BeOfGoodCheer]

Paranoia is not a healthy state of mind.

Rude and baseless, SD.

Back to topic, I cant think of any point made in the Bible where Jesus is concerned about what weapons people have. His concern was focused on what was in their heart.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Sometimes you never know.

Thank you for proving my point

Are people really so self-absorbed that they think they're important enough that people are out to get them?

I personally think I'm a Joe Blow who no one cares about. Why would anyone have any reason to ever murder me or rob me or steal from me? Me specifically?

Sure, maybe if some guy desperate for a heroin hit will rob me in the street to get some extra cash for some heroin, but he's not out to get me he's just out to fund his irrational and addictive habits. And, knowing he's not out to get me means that it is very, very statistically unlikely that such an event should occur. So statistically unlikely that I can't be bothered to even waste my neural energy worrying about it or preparing for it.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Speaking as a person that was a customer in a gas station when it got held up, I know of 2 people for sure (who were never caught incidently)

I know everyone bring up how statistically unlikely it is, but that's no excuse to be unprepared. If I would have been prepared 7 years ago, that gas station attendant wouldn't have gotten punched in the face several times and had his safe and cash register cleared out while me, my cousin, and the 3 other customers had to hide like weaklings while those 2 peices of human garbage got away free & clear with the money that I'm sure they probably used to buy drugs or something illegal.

Although, there's no way to be sure, 2 other gas stations in a 5 mile radius of the Shell station I was at got hit and one of the attendants got grazed in the shoulder. If it was the same two guys, me being prepared that day could have prevented future crimes.

Those people were not out to get you...

 

[Bubblies]

I don't think owning a gun is wrong; they have their purposes - farmers needs guns. But I am pro-gun control. Sort of.

I do think tighter gun laws are good, and work to keep people safe. I think looking at countries with tight gun-control proves that. BUT as someone said earlier, I'm not so sure it would work that well in a country with such a gun-culture like America.

I don't need a gun to defend myself, coz the person who breaks into my house is not likely to have a gun. It's possible, but not as likely as someone in America breaking in with a gun. So I understand why you guys want your guns for protection.

So I am pro-gun control, but implementing that in America would be a dangerous thing. I would definitely fight to keep tight gun laws in my own country though.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Rude and baseless, SD.

Not at all. It's bad idea to give guns to people who view everyone and anything as a potential threat. "You never know" is a very bad reason to give someone a lethal weapon. I didn't intend on accusing anyone of being paranoid.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think owning a gun is wrong; they have their purposes - farmers needs guns. But I am pro-gun control. Sort of.

I do think tighter gun laws are good, and work to keep people safe. I think looking at countries with tight gun-control proves that. BUT as someone said earlier, I'm not so sure it would work that well in a country with such a gun-culture like America.

I don't need a gun to defend myself, coz the person who breaks into my house is not likely to have a gun. It's possible, but not as likely as someone in America breaking in with a gun. So I understand why you guys want your guns for protection.

So I am pro-gun control, but implementing that in America would be a dangerous thing. I would definitely fight to keep tight gun laws in my own country though.

You're correct, it makes sense to a degree in a country where most of the bad guys don't have them (although, even if they were unarmed, I wouldn't feel too safe if the odds were 3 to 1 against me so I'd prefer to have an equalizer)

Another point that I haven't brought up in this post (nothing to do with what you said but just in general) is the organized crime element. Anytime you criminalize something that really shouldn't be criminalized (in my opinion, things like marijuana & gambling), it just opens up new line of work for organized crime units (at least going by US's history, not sure about other countries). Within a year of making guns illegal, mobs & gangs would have a multi-million dollar a year industry of selling guns in back alleys for 4 times the cost of what you pay for one legally today. The prohibition era should be a good example of that. They would start paying off local police departments to look the other way to keep their business in order and we'd be right back to square one...the bad guys being armed and the rest of us with no way to defend ourselves.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Those people were not out to get you...

If you want to look at it that way, that's fine.

But in my opinion, if 2 armed thugs barge into a store that I'm in and start threatening to shoot up the place if they don't get what they want, that's a direct and real threat to the lives of the innocent people in that store.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm all for preventing governmental tyranny, but the fact is it cannot be done based on ordinary violence. Their capacity is so superior, a gun, even in the hand of every citizen, will make no difference.

Tanks or no tanks, I don't think their capacity is superior.

I did some research (so these counts might be off just slightly since I could only find estimates and no actual hard number)

Number of US Servicemen:
Apprx: 1.9 million (only about 120,000 of them are actual combat troops, the rest perform other non-combat duties, engineers etc...)

Number of US Citizens:
Apprx: 310.5 million (obviously that takes in elderly and babies which couldn't fight)

Number of US Citizens (men between the ages of 16 and 40 & fully capable):
Apprx: 112 million

In total, we've got them outnumbered 58/1. If we look at only their combat troops (since we know a 68 year old Colonel isn't going to fight), we've got them outnumbered by 930/1.

So at those odds, how do you figure they're far superior? Sure they have WMD's, but logically they couldn't use those without offing most of themselves along with us, and even with tanks they're not going to be able to handle those odds (considering that there are people who know how to make explosives)

Like I said, these number might not be exact, but I still think it proves my point that the US people aren't helpless.