I'm sorry but I completley disagree with MMI and a lot of this will be from my own personal experience so I apologize for not having links at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MMI
It is an undeniable fact (at least, I've never seen anyone deny it convincingly) that anyone who purposely acquires a gun, or who decides to keep one that comes into his possession, contemplates killing.
When it comes to humans I contemplate stopping. Every time that I have held a gun, been taught to use a gun or gun safety (and that's been several times). I think about stopping. Stopping someone from hurting me or my loved ones. Killing has never crossed my mind as I do not wish my human attacker any permanent harm. No I want them to live, in jail.
Quote:
Apart from the "self-defence" defence, in civilised countries, only the government has the right of life or death over its citizens.
My country does not decide my fate nor does it decide the fate of people who do horrible things. They make that choice. Breaking into someones home in a state such as AZ is a life or death decision. Az. is an open carry state. Going to the grocery store you see guns. If someone decides they want to pull out their gun when others are around then they are deciding their own fate.
Quote:
In the much more civilised countries, governments will give up that right.
I don't believe in more "civilized countries". One country is not inherently more civilized than the next. They're just different.
Quote:
Self-defence is the use of minimum force sufficient to save your own life or that of another, which must be under real and immediate threat (not "possible" or "eventual" threat, for then you can take other avoiding actions).
I have never heard that definition of self-defense. Actually what I do hear is the act of defending one's self. There is no minimum effort. Only defending.
Quote:
For most intents and purposes, if you don't happen to be carrying your gun at the time (and why would you be?), but you have time to (say) go upstairs to find it before confronting the "threat", you are not going to satisfy the "imminent threat" requirement. If the threat was "imminent" you would already be dead. If you had time to get your gun, load it, and kill your assailant, you murdered him in all probability.
Being that it's been a long time since I've lived with children around the top two people I've lived with who have been really into their guns were both involved in law enforcement. Only adults came over and there guns in easy to get to places. Also intruders take much longer to get in than what you are describing... For instance...
When I was living in Az a man was watching t.v. in his living room when someone started to kick at his locked door. He immediately went to the door... not opening it and yelled at them. They refused to enter and kicked at his door some more with the obvious intention on getting inside. He then went into his bedroom. Got his gun from his gun safe, loaded it, went back into the living room and yelled "I am trained to use the firearm in my hand and if you enter I will use it". He shot them both when they managed to kick down his door. They were high on meth. He didn't even get arrested which is usual protocol for those situations.
Quote:
Gun are killing machines. They have no other purpose or function. If you have a gun, and you are not a frivolous person, then you are an actual or intending killer.
Well first of all... cars are killing machines. Let's really think about what else guns kill though... like animals for food. I carried a gun with me when I walked to the store in Az, because even in Tucson there are wild animals... everywhere. There are a lot of people whose livelihoods are based around guns... like hunters. They're a tool like any other tool. I could kill someone with a wrench but it would be a lot harder to feed people with the animal that I killed with that wrench.
Quote:
Most likely the unarmed person will comply, and (in a mugging, for example) loose a watch, a mobile phone, or his wallet, but keep his life and his body whole, or (in a sexual assault) be raped.
In answer to the first post, the woman who submits to rape is infinitely superior to the woman who attempts to kill her attacker. Chances are she will survive to take her revenge later. The chances are also that the attacker will kill any woman who attempts to find her weapon, make it ready, point and fire.
Well I have problem with this on two fronts. First of all it's a myth that complying with the person who is ordering you to hand over your belongings is going to let you live. There was a case in Memphis were a man at a convince store complied completely with the robbers demands and was then shot in the face. Cases like this are increasing every year.
Second of all. You're body is not kept whole when you are raped. It's actually taken from you in several ways. Though a watch can be replaced and your credit cards stopped it takes a lot of time to be able to look at yourself and not remember someone touching you like that. If it ever really goes away. Considering the number of people who take their own life after being raped I can't even really justify how it would be better to be raped then to have to deal with the emotional aftermath of rape. So I'm sorry if I don't see the court trial and having to relive what happened to you so someone might get convicted as parallel to actually stopping the attack.
Quote:
Usually she will die long before she has the opportunity to kill him.
You've never actually fired a gun have you? A properly trained person and a gun will win against a violent sex crazed maniac. It is point and click technology.
I'm sorry if i didn't fully understand the scenerios you had laid out after that and thus will not respond to them.
Quote:
But people who kill for recreation? How despicable is that?
Those people don't legally own guns anyway.
Quote:
A thief does not deserve to die at the hands of an American vigilante any more than he deserves to be mutilated on the orders of a Sharia court.
Again that person makes their own fate. What he deserves is less important than what someone who has committed no crime deserves.
Quote:
But if you kill an innocent visitor, or a passer by, how can you make up for that?
Again those crimes are committed by people who illegally own guns. The person who owns again for their safety in my experience is properly trained on it. Is skilled in using it and will use it only in self defense. That's why people go to target practice. To ensure accurate use.
Quote:
Still worse, if your child finds your gun and shows it to his friend, and one of them innocently shoots the other, how would you cope? Could you bury your child knowing you were responsible for its death - or would you rationalise it by saying it's the cost of an imprtant right? Could you attend your neighbour's child's funeral - assuming you were allowed to?
The opposite of this is how could you let your child die at the hands of an intruder? Is it not the same horrible loss?
Quote:
In the UK, we have relatively few incidents where someone "freaks out" and goes on a killing spree.
Actually there are a few that come to mind off hand. They just don't happen to be with guns.
The issue really is this and it's simple. You can still buy a gun in the UK, you're just a criminal for doing it. Most likely you were a criminal before you bought it too. Here people are law abiding people and buying a gun does not change that fact at all.
