20/20 on Gun Control

[bthest]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=2

And also:

This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

So much truth in such a short space.

[ElectricBadger]

Aye, those believing that gun control eliminates threats to society should consider how different the Virginia Tech shooting would have been if a couple of those 32 victims had been armed.

[TomOfSweden]

But as Finland showed. Once guns have been made illegal, it takes almost 50 years before we see the full effect. People as a rule don't hand in their guns, and we have to patiently wait for them to break. Just looking at a couple of years right after a gun banning just doesn't make any sense.

Austria's extremely liberal gun laws and very low occurrence of gun crime leads us to believe that it's a complicated issue. We can't just point to the guns alone and say, without them problem solved. Post war Finland also had extreme low levels of gun crime even though every home had at least a rifle.

We can debate why the number of gun related murders in specifically USA and not Austria is out of proportion. It seems to be obvious that it's out of control in USA. The reason why USA as a culture can't handle liberal gun laws, and how it can be solved without removing them is another debate all together.

edit: We know they can't handle gun laws as they have it now simply by reading statistics.

[bthest]

But as Finland showed. Once guns have been made illegal, it takes almost 50 years before we see the full effect. People as a rule don't hand in their guns, and we have to patiently wait for them to break. Just looking at a couple of years right after a gun banning just doesn't make any sense.

In Britain citizens had until a certain date to hand in the guns or give them to a gun club. Then the government personally confiscated all the banned guns which weren't turned in by the owners.

We could probably wait another 50 years and Britain's gun crime won't change much. Mostly because problems didn't come from legally owned guns but from guns smuggled into the country by the gangs.

We know [Americans] can't handle gun laws as they have it now simply by reading statistics.

Because the gun/weapon laws here are useless and we're better off without 98% of them.

[Stone]

Well most criminals will use whatever to commit violent crimes. Let's say gun are banned and by some miracle all the guns are turned in.Well now the criminals are using knives,hmmm ban thise too? ok banned now they are using pitch forks and garden tools ban those now? The only thing banning guns does is take guns out of law abiding citizens hands and makes them easy prey for criminals.

[nia25]

Let me start by saying if I offend anyone I apologize now. I am an American citizen, and I personally think gun control laws are rediculous! They only people who will obey by them are law abiding citizens. If they are law abiding citizens, they are not going to go shoot up a school or go on a killing spree. I learned to shoot a gun at twelve years old and until I was 18 I entered in many shooting sport events through 4-H (an agriculture group for kids.) Many opposed, and probably still do, the fact that kids were allowed to be around guns. However I have NEVER heard of a 4-H kid, who learned how to shoot at a young age, shooting at anything that they should not have or going on a killing spree. They should teach gun EDUCATION... not ban anything that will carry more than ten bullets or is a semi-automatic. All it does is make law abiding citizens suffer. Especially those of us who enjoy collecting guns and use them as a sport... not violence! Guns do not kills people... if they did I would be dead LOL. People kill people!!!!

[Euryleia]

Good thread, everyone.

At the most basic level, guns are only tools. They are as ripe for misuse as any other. Of course, a person with a bat on a rampage is much less likely to wreak the kind of havoc than an individual with a full clip can. But if you’re facing a home invader or a rapist, I’m sure you’d rather be armed with a 9mm than a Louisville slugger.

Crime statistics show us that women are very likely to be the victims of violence. Most of the perpetrators will be physically bigger and stronger than us. A weapon helps to even the odds. You might argue that guns have a tendency to be turned back on their owners. I’d reply that it’s far more likely that the weapon was taken because the owner wasn’t committed to self-defense.

It is vital that we recognize that we have the right to defend our beliefs and ourselves. I would go further to say that it’s critically important that those of us on the Left be as prepared to defend our ideals as our brethren on the other side of the political spectrum. The Right seems inherently aware than an unarmed populace is completely at the mercy of those with the power.

I used to have a bumper sticker that read: "Not all lesbians own cats. Some of own guns." I wonder sometimes how many hate crimes we would see if the homophobes and sexual predators knew that we might be carrying more than tampons in our purses.

ER

[ElectricBadger]

we have the right to defend our beliefs and ourselves

Best phrasing I've ever heard, thank you for posting!

[John56{vg}]

I am on the left as well. But I do own guns. I believe in gun control but alos believe we have the right to own guns. May be contradictory but it works for me, LOL.

[Euryleia]

Works for me, too. I have to admit that sometimes it gets lonely at the NRA meetings over in the lesbian feminist corner, tho.

I've always been a fan of the phrase 'gun control means hitting what you're aiming at.'

[nk_lion]

I'm on the fence about gun control. I don't own one, nor am I planning to buy one any time soon. In Canada, there wasn't an issue with gun violence until just recently, and it's mostly gangs killing each other (which to me is more like public service by saving the police from arresting them, charging them, prosecuting them, then jailing them).

But as of recent, there seems to be a trend that a lot of border towns and cities are being affected by gun being smuggled over, which is simply creating a nuicance. So for gun laws in Canada, I think we need to secure our borders more.

Now in US, the main arguement that I've heard for the legality of owning a gun is an ammendment that is more then 200 years old. And even when they quote that ammendment, they leave out more then half of it. I believe the entire thing is more like this:-
"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."

So back in the 18th century, if people still remember their history, the colonies of 'America' were trying to break away from England. After independance, the United States of America was in no way the powerhouse that it is today, so if my knowledge of history is correct, this ammendment was added simply to ensure that all Americans had a right to own a gun incase the English or Native Americans had to be fought with.

Now, this is were my logic about this ammendment differs a bit from a few pro-gun folks. If there is no threat to the US, in terms of an invasion, it would make the necessity the right to bear arms invalid, right?

Plus, if people are so worried about the constituion, and sticking to the letter, then the Patriot Act wouldn't have come into effect in 2001.

Anyhow, the saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people is completely true. Just as true as saying alchohol do not cause drunk driving accidents, people cause that. It's completely true, it's your method of perspective. And actually, in writing this post, I think I lean against owning guns completely. While I agree with Electric Badger that if one of those students in Virgina Tech had own a gun, they could shoot that killer, what about cases when a guy get's drunk, and someone shoves him the wrong way? Personally, I don't drink, but I have seen some completely nice people transform when they're drunk, and I wouldn't even trust them with a pocket knife let alone a gun.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[nia25]

What you say is true, however personally I look at guns as I do a baseball bat. It's a tool to use for a sport. I don't go around hunting or anything like that, and I certainly would not shoot someone unless I absolutely had to for self defense... even then I don't know if I could do it. I feel that we should be able to own guns... why not? I also feel that ANYONE wanting to own a gun could benefit from a gun safety course. But the stupidity over the gun control is certain ones are illegal that are pretty much no different than the legal ones. Except maybe how many bullets they hold. It is rediculous!!!

[bthest]

If there is no threat to the US, in terms of an invasion, it would make the necessity the right to bear arms invalid, right?

Plus, if people are so worried about the constituion, and sticking to the letter, then the Patriot Act wouldn't have come into effect in 2001.

Many consider the patriot act to be a threat to the US and many, many people are worried about it. The Patriot Act was passed by congress and not a national referendum so we Americans didn't have much to say the in the matter.

The 2nd Amendment and militia doesn't apply solely to foreign threats. See Hurricane Katrina for instance.

Also there have been recent court rulings in the past few years that 2nd amendment doesn't protect militias but individuals.

So the 2nd Amendment is still valid and useful in my opinion as recent events and court rulings have shown.

[Guest 91108]

bthest , I agree with the whole of your post.

the second is all about defense of self, then successively local and state and federal.
It is the individuals who join together to protect the successive levels of community that become militia. So if the population is not in possession of the firearms or whatever is available to them due to technical increase.. then how are they to defend against? smiles.. there is where many of people begin to have problems. kinda means we should stop expending into military technology and keep it low level doesn't it.. Grins even more.
Anyways... That is how it started and is coming back around to it .. as the law abiding citizen has a right to self defense..
The courts have said that there is no emphasis on the LEO community to act to defend. It is to act to enforce and catch the criminal. That is evident in why they rush to a crime afterwards and often are too late during the commission of it ... As they can not prevent but end up cleaning up basically.

Since I am a CCW and was an instructor until earlier this year .. I see a huge increase in those whom seek legal carry because of the crime increase.
And in states that have CCW .. the criminal populations knows it.. and crime statistically drops and drops every year. That is not put into the pc/media/news.
Wonder why ? could it because that doesn't promote their anti-gun agenda ?

[Uncle_Ed]

As a UK citizen, I am dismayed at the increasing level of gun-related crime here. I see it as a result of a failure within our society rather than as a result of any legislation-for or against guns.

As a child I owned an air rifle and belonged to the National Small Bore Rifle Association. I learnt how to shoot and handle a weapon. I also knew that I could never shoot a living being after seeing what even a .22 could do...

As long as there are people who take the attitude that they can disregard others-there will be problems. And, I'm sorry to say-that is the prevalent attitude in society at the moment.

I will say that I now worry when I confront gangs of youths who I need to "shoo away" at work. One of these days, one of them will pull a knife or gun on me-and I shall be obliged to hurt them. I don't want to do that...

[nia25]

Understandbly Ed. I did many speeches and reports in high school on gun control and, as that was seven years ago, if I remember correctly one out of every five homes in america own at least one gun. That is why you have never heard of other countries invading the US lol.... ya never know when your gonna get the wrong house. hehehe... it is out of control though. Maybe if kids these days were made to take gun safety courses they wouldn't feel the need to shoot up a school? I could be wrong...

[Midnite]

For me gun-control means.

Being able to hit my target.

[DungeonMaster6]

Like some of you, I also have mixed feelings when it comes to gun control. As a homeowner I have a right to defend myself from anyone breaking into my residence. That's why I believe the Supreme Court should strike down The District of Columbia's ridiculous ban on citizens owning guns. If someone breaks into my home, they will encounter an alarm system that alerts the police. But if I hear someone trying to burglurize my home, and they get in before the cops arrive, they will face my gun.

However, I don't think citizens should be allowed to carry guns in public. Yes I know that if the folks on VA. Tech campus had been armed, lives could've been saved. But do we really want faculty and students on a college campus carrying loaded guns? Imagine if a professor gives a student a failing grade, would you want to see a gun battle in a classroom? Or two people get involved in a car accident, and one of them pulls out a piece? Or someone cuts someone off in a car, and one of them pulls out a rod? Road rage is a dangerous situation enough without adding guns to the mix. In a civilized society do we want to return to having gun battles in the streets? This is not the wild, wild west.

Yes I know guns don't cause crime, people do. To sum it up, yes I think people have a right to protect themselves and property from break-ins, but carrying guns in public, no!

[sassycat4him]

My husband is considered a "felon' b/c of something he did 20+ years ago and b/c of that, he of course, can't have a firearm in our home. He is older now, an adult with a family. How can anyone tell him or even me for that matter, who has never committed a crime, that we can not protect our family from invaders? It isn't right. I have a hand gun put away in a secure locked box. I will do what it takes to protect my family.

[moral-man]

The fact of the matter is that there is not a single good reason why any person that does not work in the armed forces or the police should possess a lethal weapon. In terms of self defense there are methods just as effective as guns, including pepper sprays, tasers or even riot guns.

All you get from keeping a gun in your house is that kids find them and accidentally blow their brains out, given that their parents haven't already shot them at night because you thought they were burglars (both things that routinely seem to happen in the USA).

And even in the case that you had an armed robber in your house, you'd probably still be better off without a gun. That's simply because, the robber would be more inclined to use his gun if he saw you armed. and since he has less prohibitions to kill a person, he'd probably be the first to shoot.

well, maybe I'm beeing little too assumptious here. let me know

[Midnite]

The fact of the matter is that there is not a single good reason why any person that does not work in the armed forces or the police should possess a lethal weapon. In terms of self defense there are methods just as effective as guns, including pepper sprays, tasers or even riot guns.

All you get from keeping a gun in your house is that kids find them and accidentally blow their brains out, given that their parents haven't already shot them at night because you thought they were burglars (both things that routinely seem to happen in the USA).

And even in the case that you had an armed robber in your house, you'd probably still be better off without a gun. That's simply because, the robber would be more inclined to use his gun if he saw you armed. and since he has less prohibitions to kill a person, he'd probably be the first to shoot.

well, maybe I'm beeing little too assumptious here. let me know

I don't know, I can't think of a least one instance where the sound of a slide being pulled back on a pump shotgun scared a crook intent on doing bodily harm to a friend of mine to simply turn around and leave, whoops I mean rapidly leave. I really can imagine that the sound of taking the Off on a can of mace would scare somebody.

and when the crazies that are out there today, it doesn't make you need to rescue some of them whether or not you cooperate, they're going to kill you anyway. I would much rather die with a gun in my hand, then with my hands in the air, at least I have a chance!

[moral-man]

I don't know, I can't think of a least one instance where the sound of a slide being pulled back on a pump shotgun scared a crook intent on doing bodily harm to a friend of mine to simply turn around and leave, whoops I mean rapidly leave.

true, but I think that you shooting the crook with rubber projectiles from your riot gun would have the same effect, plus the satisfaction of having infliced a great amount of pain on him

as for all the other points that were raised, I dont live in the states so I cant really tell how scrupulous the average burglar would be. In any case, guns are not the solution. If there actually are people breaking into houses and killing for drugs, this would only show the deficiency in the social structure of your country.

effectively what needs to be done is putting more effort and money into the rehabilitation of drug addicts and criminals as well as into the education system, so that those sort of people don't develop in the first place.

[ThisYouWillDo]

No, Moral-man, you are quite right. The ONLY reason to own a hand-gun is to kill. And the only thing a hand gun is good for is killing people: it's not a sports gun. So if anyone has a gun for protection in this day and age, it's because they contemplate killing an intruder who is probably after no more than a few dollars. That's not "necessary force" in my opinion. I know money's important in a material world, but a burglar isn't there to threaten your life, he's there to steal your credit cards. You can phone the bank afterwards to cancel the cards without loss of anyone's life.

So, if it's not "necessary force" and it's contemplated beforehand, doesn't that count as premeditated murder?

-o0O0o-

People have no reason to own a hand gun and should hand them in before they (or their kids) do something they'll regret forever after.

People who own target pistols and the like should leave them at their shooting club.

Hunters (what an unspeakable passtime: killing for amusement! They then drive home with the poor beast strapped to the front of their truck so that like-minded morons can think "What a great guy!") need hunting rifles I suppose. They should be licenced. They should pass a weapons handling test and pass an exam on the gun laws. They should also notify the police at least 24 hours ahead of any hunting expedition so they can be aware of where shooting is likely to take place.


-o0O0o-


After Dunblane happened, we were horrified at how anyone could get hold of weapons so easily. But at least kids can't buy them at ASDA (our version of WalMart). There was a short amnesty before all guns above .22 (I think) were banned. As has been noted above. The effect was to get old guns and collecters' item handed in. Criminals kept their sawn-off shotguns and other weapons. So nowadays the only people with weapons in UK are criminals, members of the armed forces and CIA agents.

As for our criminals, they tend to carry their guns as a threat rather then use them. Drug dealers tend to carry the really dangerous weapons, and they will use them - but mostly against each other. So, although gun crimes are on the increase, the victims tend to be criminals too. And by "carry" I mean, they give them to kids to look after. Sometimes the kids do silly things ... and recently an eleven year-old kid was killed for no evident reason at all.


The rest of us are relatively law abiding and we still have the luxury of police who don't routinely carry guns, although we do have Armed Response Units and armed police at airports (a fairly recent phenomenon). The first time I saw a real gun in my life was when I was 18, on holiday, in Italy. Somehow that makes me feel good. No, not good - superior.

I have no time, and utter contempt for people who think there is a single valid reason why an ordinary citizen should have a gun. They are intending killers, even if they never actually fulfil that intention.

And, as far as my understanding of American law goes, the constitutional right to bear arms is restricted to people actively taking part in a militia to protect themselves against the British or the Indians. How much of a threat is either group now?

[Thorne]

No, Moral-man, you are quite right. The ONLY reason to own a hand-gun is to kill. And the only thing a hand gun is good for is killing people: it's not a sports gun. So if anyone has a gun for protection in this day and age, it's because they contemplate killing an intruder who is probably after no more than a few dollars. That's not "necessary force" in my opinion. I know money's important in a material world, but a burglar isn't there to threaten your life, he's there to steal your credit cards. You can phone the bank afterwards to cancel the cards without loss of anyone's life.

So, if it's not "necessary force" and it's contemplated beforehand, doesn't that count as premeditated murder?

Nope! That counts as defending one's property. In the US, at least, a disproportionate amount of break-ins and home invasions are committed by drug users looking for their next fix. Many will do ANYTHING to get what they need, including killing people. With the current rate of such crimes planning to kill an intruder isn't "premeditated murder," it's a planned defense.

Hunters (what an unspeakable passtime: killing for amusement! They then drive home with the poor beast strapped to the front of their truck so that like-minded morons can think "What a great guy!") need hunting rifles I suppose. They should be licenced. They should pass a weapons handling test and pass an exam on the gun laws. They should also notify the police at least 24 hours ahead of any hunting expedition so they can be aware of where shooting is likely to take place.

I agree in part: hunting for trophies is unspeakable and should be banned except where necessary to control the animals' population to prevent them from exhausting their food supply and starving. Hunting for food, on the other hand, is more understandable, though mostly unnecessary in this day and age except for those with low incomes. I agree regarding the licensing and weapons handling tests, which should be applied to ALL weapons, including hunting weapons, hand guns, even bows and arrows. In the US, at least, the vast majority of hunting takes place outside of city limits and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the local police. Game wardens, county and state police are aware of the legal hunting areas and monitor them. At least theoretically.

And, as far as my understanding of American law goes, the constitutional right to bear arms is restricted to people actively taking part in a militia to protect themselves against the British or the Indians. How much of a threat is either group now?

A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists. However, it is my opinion that any citizen who wants to own a weapon should be required to obtain a license, submit fingerprint and DNA samples to the national databases, attend a strict and comprehensive training program with annual reviews, and be held fully responsible for any incidents involving their weapons, weather they were using them or not.

If criminals knew that a significant percentage of a population were trained and licensed to carry arms they would have to think twice about threatening anyone. Providing the licensing procedure was sufficiently comprehensive and included some form of psychological profile the chances of unstable persons getting hold of legal weapons would be minimal. The costs of all of this should be covered by the weapon manufacturers and those selling and purchasing the weapons.

I don't own any weapons myself, nor do I feel the need to do so. I do, however, believe in the rights of my fellow citizens to own them, providing they can meet such stringent requirements. The gun control laws in this country right now are a farce. They definitely need revamping. But banning all civilian owned weapons is, in my opinion, a bad idea.

[mkemse]

My understanding, is That sometime in 2008, The Unites staes Supremem Court will be making a decsion based on THEIR understanding of what the Amendents to the constituions means regarding the right to bear arms I will be intrestedso see what they say
This law is being revieiwed, because Washinigton DC 9How ironic) has a law that allows those with hand liscences to carry them concealed, a teacher there for her protection carried a gunto work with her, she is a teacher, she was fired from here job for violating the schools zerotolerance rule on gun posession in schools,
The teacher said she carried it for protection against I believe it was her ex husband, the school board told her law or no law, we have a law for schoolss that say no gund period
The Supremem Court agreed to hear her Case to determine whether she can legaly carry a consealed weapon legaly, or if she can not based on the school districts policy

[ThisYouWillDo]

Apart from dedicated huntsmen and sportsmen, anyone who owns a gun contemplates killing someone, and has taken steps to bring that thought about. This is nothing to do with self-defence in a civilised society.

You argue that you have a right to defend your property. Yes I agree that all common-law countries put a greater value on property than on human life, but the law can be an ass sometimes. Frankly, even if you have the law on your side, if you believe you have a right to kill a burglar first and ask questions later, you are no better than a primitive ape-man, and probably far worse.

Besides, you have NO CHANCE if you are faced with a murderous intruder, to go to the safe place where you keep your weapon stored, unlock it and take out the box you keep it in, remove it and then find the ammunition you need, load the gun, and point the weapon at your adversary, before he fires his gun at you. So as a means of defence, it sucks.

Frankly, midnite scares me even without a gun and at 3,000 miles distance. You can sense the self-glorification as he brags that he had a gun - like a throbbing penis - and he couldn't wait to shoot his load. Yes I think that, considering the words he used, he was mentally masturbating with the gun. What on EARTH is the justification for having a pump-action shotgun if it isn't to kill. I mean, if you need to shoot foxes and other vermin, an ordinary single-barrelled shotgun that requires to be broken and reloaded after each shot is perfectly adequate.

Midnite, it seems to me that in the incident described, you were already two onto one. If I were the other guy, I'd be looking for a way out, even without a gun. The gun was not necessary. Thus you weren't saving your friend, you were primarily restating your desire to become a killer some time. I bet you laughed afterwards!

Crazies? Yeah, right!

Thorne says: A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists.

That is true. But your lawmakers were contemplating foreign invaders at the time, not thieves and robbers. Nklion was better able to state what the constitution says than I was, so I repeat what he said: "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." That does not include criminals, and I haven't heard that US citizens have formed an anti-terrorist militia in any town, city or state. So that's not why they are holding guns, is it?

I would add that individuals who "enforce the law their own way" like Charles Bronson copycats are as bad as the people they go after. Vigilantes do not protect law and order, they ignore it because it does not match up to their personal expectations; and a group of vigilantes is a lynch mob. That was not what the consitution was advocating.

TYWD

[Midnite]

Frankly, midnite scares me even without a gun and at 3,000 miles distance. You can sense the self-glorification as he brags that he had a gun - like a throbbing penis - and he couldn't wait to shoot his load. Yes I think that, considering the words he used, he was mentally masturbating with the gun. What on EARTH is the justification for having a pump-action shotgun if it isn't to kill. I mean, if you need to shoot foxes and other vermin, an ordinary single-barrelled shotgun that requires to be broken and reloaded after each shot is perfectly adequate.

Midnite, it seems to me that in the incident described, you were already two onto one. If I were the other guy, I'd be looking for a way out, even without a gun. The gun was not necessary. Thus you weren't saving your friend, you were primarily restating your desire to become a killer some time. I bet you laughed afterwards!



Thorne says: A militia doesn't necessarily have to fight against foreign invaders. They can also fight to defend against insurgents, criminals and terrorists.

That is true. But your lawmakers were contemplating foreign invaders at the time, not thieves and robbers. Nklion was better able to state what the constitution says than I was, so I repeat what he said: "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." That does not include criminals, and I haven't heard that US citizens have formed an anti-terrorist militia in any town, city or state. So that's not why they are holding guns, is it?


TYWD

Just why I almost didn't join into this discussion, it never fails and you start talking about politics some freaking yo-yo has always got to insult somebody else, I'm going to prove who is the most intelligent of the two and not insult ThisYouWillDo, I will say this, you don't know me, and it's probably to my advantage.

Just to let you know I've spent two years in law enforcement, and there were a few times that I had to make the decision on whether or not to shoot someone, I chose not to, but rest assured if I would've pulled the trigger they would have been dead, no ifs, ands, or buts about it, if someone breaks into my house and steals my TV set, more power to them, if all they are after its property, let them have it, but let them threaten my life or try to do bodily harm to me, fuck em, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they never walk out of the door of my house, if you don't understand what I am saying, I will kill them with no hesitation, and lots of regrets.

As far as the militia part of this discussion goes, it was not only to protect ourselves from foreign invaders, but to also protect ourselves from our own government that this was written in to the Constitution. If you want to continue this discussion without insulting somebody that I will be glad to join in, but insult me again

[newby]

i am a small biz owner, primarily cash. i am a woman, here by myself. i open before daylight & i close after dark. This type biz is robbed about once a week this time of year. i used my silent alarm once & it took the cops 7 minutes to get here. SEVEN MINUTES!!! i'm a dead woman if i have to wait 7minutes for someone to protect & serve. So yes, i carry a gun. Will i shoot somebody to protect a few hundred bucks. Hell no. It's money, big deal. But when someone has a gun pointed in my face, you better believe i will defend myself.

Why do i carry a gun? 'Cause i cant carry a cop. And when seconds count, cops show up in minutes.

[ThisYouWillDo]

This freaking yo-yo makes no apologies for what he has said above, and withdraws nothing. Nor does he feel his intelligence has been at all impugned by what you say. This freaking yo-yo calls things the way he sees them, and you certainly give the impression described ... "gun-control means being able to hit my target" indeed! Ha!

But thank-you for refraining from returning my insults. I take it, then, that there is nothing derogatory about the term freaking yo-yo in the sense you used it.

OK - so the Right to Bear Arms amendment to the Constitution includes the right to organise militias against threats by the US government too. I'm loathe to say anything nice about politicians, but they are not the kind of muggers and robbers that walk up to you, point a gun or a knife at you and ask you to empty your pockets, or who break into your shop to rifle your till. A tyrannical US government would be every bit as bad as government by Britain and would deserve to be shot; but that has nothing to do with individual criminals trying to steal from you. So I still say that you are probably asserting a right you don't lawfully have.

And where are the "organised militias" that all these gun-toting citizens are supposed to have formed? The only militias I am aware of certainly aren't there to protect everybody's rights and freedoms. They belong to the armed right wing - hate groups and fundamentalist Christian movements, to mention a couple by genre. They are more likely to be vigilantes or illegal armies than organised militias created to protect the free state.

You've spent two years in law enforcement, and I have to respect that. You say you have been in several situations where you have had to choose whether or not to use your weapon, and you chose not to. That too demands respect. So I am cautious about what I say next.

The only time you should have been contemplating the use of your fire-arm is in a kill-or-be-killed situation which cannot be defused. As a responsible law enforcement agent, I am sure that you assessed the situation and, realising it could be defused, you let that happen. If you had used your gun in a situation which was capable of being defused, you would have been acting wrongly. So, really, you didn't have a choice.

I acknowledge that it takes skillful assessment of the situation and nerves of steel to act the way you did. True professionalism. (I am not against the police being armed, by the way, although I prefer them not to carry guns routinely.)

Otherwise, as neither you nor the other person was shot, it was not a kill-or-be-killed situation and it did not require you to consider the use of your gun at all.

If your life is threatened, or even your safety, I have no problem with you killing someone in self-defence with whatever comes to hand (Newby, this is for you too). If there happens to be a conveniently placed gun within reach, then shoot the bugger if you can! But if you kill to protect property, I question your moral values and your judgement. Are you any better than the man you shot, and does it matter which of you survives?

Normal defences against intrusion are locks on doors and windows, maybe high walls and barbed wire. Electronic alarms. A big dog, perhaps. Definitely not man-traps. And if not man-traps why guns? People who know their life is at risk (not just fear their life might be at risk, but know it), such as leading politicians for example, might be able to justify carrying a gun at all times about their person. But people who have a gun "just in case" an intruder breaks in are acting out of proportion to the risks they face - and in all probability will kill an unarmed person, possibly an innocent caller, because they were too busy shitting their pants with fear, and creating a life-or-death situation out of nothing. Over here we are constantly hearing of situations where unarmed people have been shot by over-excited paranoids with guns, or by trained armed policemen. Rarely do we hear of fire fights between the armed police and a gang of criminals. That was a rarity even in Northern Ireland during the Troubles.

So, I'd give you good odds, Midnite and Newby, that if someone shoved a gun in your face, and you co-operated with what he told you to do, you'd survive, whereas if you tried to pull a gun on him, he'd shoot you first. (I'd give better odds to Newby, of course, as Midnite clearly has handled guns professionally.)

[nia25]

To post or not to post.... I am responding to this thread carefully... and thoughtfully. I do not see how owning a hand gun can be contemplating murder. I grew up around guns, participated in many competition shootings, and used handguns as well as rifles. I like shooting guns. If I want to own one, that is my perogative. I will not kill anyone or anything with it, so what do you care? It is my right. I bought my guns with my money, and followed all of the retarded gun laws in getting it. You are not going to see it my way, and I am not going to see it yours. Why insult each other and get upset over something you virtually have no control over? By the way, I have never contemplated killing anyone with my gun.