DescentBB

roid wrote:I don't want to protect anything with a gun because i don't trust what i could be tempted to do with it. I don't want the power.

Quite often, those who support the strongest anti-gun laws are those with this viewpoint. If you don't trust yourself with a gun, why trust anyone else? If you don't want that power, why should anyone else have it?

The same is often true for drug laws. People don't trust themselves to drink/smoke/snort responsibly, so they don't want anyone ELSE to be allowed to either.

There's certainly a degree to which each of those things should be regulated. When people have used them to unnecessarily harm others, they should be restricted from having them again. When people have a history of behavior that shows they're unlikely to refrain from unnecessarily harming others, they should be restricted from having them. But why restrict those who use them responsibly as tools to accomplish certain tasks? Certain drugs can be used to treat certain illnesses, and guns can be used to protect lives and property and to hunt. Why not allow people access to both? You may not be trustworthy, but others are.

That's a great statistic, Kilarin. Please provide links!

Not avoiding or retracting folks, just trying to track down my link!
The original source of this data was an article by a very reliable friend of mine. Which, of course, would NOT be reliable to anyone else since you don't KNOW him. He had several links in his article backing up his numbers, but, unfortunantly, not a link for THAT tidbit of information. I've sent him an email requesting the original source, but he's still sleeping, that lazy good for nothing!

roid wrote:I don't want the power.

As history has shown us time and time again, when “the people” abdicate their power and responsibility of self-protection, relying instead on someone else, they open the door to bad things. Bad things like (fascist dictators) (genocide) (insert bad thing here).

I was actually having a similar, but unrelated conversation with my girlfriend last night over dinner. I suggested that we invite one of her co-workers to take a (defense) course with us, as she is a single mom who lives alone now that her kids are in college. My girlfriend said "Oh, no, Goldie is totally against violence!” to which I replied, “Sheep are strongly anti-violence. Sadly (for the sheep!), the views of wolves differ.”

oh, and x2 on what Lothar said. It's funny how people who can't control themselves feel it is necessary to control others.

Hmm, then if me and 10 other people didnt trust ourselves with the power to stay alive we could kill everybody and ourselves legit?

In actuallity i believe in the right to posses deadly weapons in the intent to use them for self defense.. be that a knife, firearm, or cannon i dont think it matters, just the fact that you, your family and possesions will be safe in the unfortunate chance that the officers dont arrive.

OR Behe...you could just lock your doors a little bit better...if you're that worried...build a moat...

WarAdvocat wrote:... my girlfriend ...

That is a disturbing image, but I digress. Carry on.

Zuruck wrote:OR Behe...you could just lock your doors a little bit better...if you're that worried...build a moat...

What happens if the guy on the other end has a portable bridge? What happens if, in the end, whatever system you had to keep him out is inadequate?

IMO, if you're going to let people protect their families in their homes, they should have access to whatever option they deem best for doing so, within reason. (Specifically, they should be limited to weapons that won't cause excessive collateral damage. Rockets and grenades are not a suitable home defense.) Better locks are good for reducing the possibility, but unless you're marketing a *perfect* lock, at some point there will arise a need for some person to meet an intruder with force (or at least to threaten it.) I'm sure all of us would prefer not to be that person -- we'd all prefer for others to respect our locked, double-locked, or moat-protected domain, but sometimes people don't have that respect and sometimes they have the means to circumvent the protections in place.

I don't see any reason why you should be able to tell someone else here "if your locks aren't adequate and you're not muscular enough, too damn bad, I guess that guy gets to rape your little girl because you can't have a gun." If you're the last line of defense for your family, you should at least have the option to arm yourself adequately to meet reasonably-expected threats.

Kilarin wrote:their per-capita rate of crimes involving KINVES is 3 times the per-capita rate in the US

That's a great statistic, Kilarin. Please provide links!

Ok folks. My humble apologies. I THOUGHT the number was solid, but after much research, I can't support it AS STATED. I DO try and make certain that numbers I quote are good, but in this case, I goofed. It shouldn't have been phrased that way.

In Canada in 2003,
71% of murders were committed with something other than a gun.
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publicat ... cle520.doc
or click HERE to read the report in html format:

In the US in 2003,
33% of murders were commited with something other than a gun.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31172003.pdf

And so, the percentage of murders that are commited with a weapon other than a gun is more than twice as large in Canada as opposed to the United States. But it does NOT appear that the per-capita rate of crimes involving kinves is 3 times larger in Canada. As far as I can crunch the numbers, the actual per-capita rate is still larger in the US. Again, my appologies. I have placed a note in the original post.

WarAdvocat wrote:

roid wrote:I don't want the power.

...
oh, and x2 on what Lothar said. It's funny how people who can't control themselves feel it is necessary to control others.

Lothar and WarAdvocat, before you go on: i'm a Anarchist/Libertarian. You can have all the guns you want, i won't stop you.

& I wasn't saying that i can't handle the responsability, more that i just don't want to. There's no need for me to have a gun.

right, roid... I wasn't particularly saying that *you personally* want to ban guns, only that many people who have the \"I don't trust myself with a gun\" attitude think that's a good reason to ban them for everyone.

Your solution is perfectly reasonable... you don't want the responsibility, so you don't own a gun. Good move.

Yeah these sorts of issues should definintely be a topic in the debate. There are unsaid internal issues on both sides really, that while perhaps if revealed may initially open each respective side up to too-easy partisan snarking attacks *cough* *cough* - in the longrun however such honesty will enable a mutual understanding of both sides of the issue and a happy ideological middle ground will be much closer within reach.

My analyzation of the gun thingy.

In my great state of Florida, where we also have the same law & Jeb Bush, our great leader of the Floridians. (You know I am sarastic right?)

The child gun safety stuff is controversial, because if you keep your guns out scattered everywhere, someone is going to play with it, if there are many kids. But if you lock them up, & keep the ammo somewhere else, it doesn't serve a purpose. If there is a person in your house, and you plan to shoot to kill, first you'd have to unlock the gun, then get the ammo & load it into the gun. If this guy was armed, your really dead if he wants to kill you.

I am 13, the generation whom seems to shoot other 13 year olds. My parents are paranoid, and kept me away from their guns...

Until there was at least 3-5 murders that week.

I am a very good kid, at least my parents think I am. I definately have emotional problems they don't know about: attempted suicide, high levels of depression, constant nightmares, etc. But I don't kill people, fight, and I don't spend my day doing drugs. I mean good as in I won't shoot someone for my pleasure, or kill a whole bunch of people with a gun. My parents know that, and they told me where their guns are just incase something happens while I am alone at home for 15 hours of my day.

I will try not to kill if I ever have to use the guns at any time. I will try to aim for the legs or the hand (if they have a weapon). The arsenal of my family is wierd. The weapon is a \"Model 422\" which is a wierd gun. It uses .22 cal, and this ammunition type is known for being random. It can kill in one shot to the leg, while there was a report of someone taking 7 shots to the heart area, and living. It is unpredictable, so I don't know if all this precaution would even work in not killing someone.

I hope though I never have to use it at all. Actually, I love shooting it off at a range, but I mean I don't want to shoot someone with it. This may be coming from a 13 year old, a generation whom seems to accidentaly shoot other kids, but I am not the majority.

If you think this is the stupidest thing ever written, okay, but don't kill me over it. First time making a lenghty opinion post for a very long time (try three years.)

Dakatsu wrote:I will try not to kill if I ever have to use the guns at any time. I will try to aim for the legs or the hand (if they have a weapon).

That's what I thought when I was 13. My dad let me have it for expressing that opinion. He told me that I should never even POINT a real gun at someone unless I intended to kill them. If it wasn't worth killing them, just leave the gun alone. Shooting to "wound" is a good way to kill someone you didn't mean to, or to get yourself killed. You'd be surprised how much damage a man who has been shot several times can still do.

Dakatsu wrote:definately have emotional problems they don't know about: attempted suicide, high levels of depression, constant nightmares, etc.

You should talk to them about it. If not your parents, talk to your pastor, a teacher, SOMEONE. We'll keep you in our prayers.

With regards to children and gun safety: Education goes a long way, and there are several gun-safe systems that allow rapid access to firearms while remaining secure.

The \"shooting to wound\" issue has been covered here and elsewhere many times. The bottom line is: Shooting to wound will get you killed. Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. Period. Oh, and if you shoot someone, you are almost definately going to be arrested and go to jail.

I am educated, and I guess I will figure out what to do if any time comes around where I will have to shoot someone. I obviously won't show it to my friend, he would shoot me & run off with the gun

And my emotional problems listed there are very small now, a year ago they were giant problems. They are not a problem now.