[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Ive been in the military, I know exacly what a gun can do. Ive never been in a live firefight, but I dont think that applies here. Its because I know what a gun can do, and what guns make people do that I know guns dont belong in the hands of civilians, only highly trained professionals (police, military personell). [/B][/QUOTE]
So you don't believe that guns belong in the hands of civilians, period? Responsible users and irresponsible users alike?
One thing I find sort of funny is how you say guns should only be in the possession of police or military personnel. Now, I don't know the statistics, but I wouldn't say there aren't any police officers and military servicemen who are able to misuse their firearms.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
Well...
I hate to say it but the "Right to Bear Arms" says nothing about the "Right to Conceal Arms."
I have no problem with people having weapons. I have a problem with people concealing that they have them while walking down the street. There isn't any need to do that unless you are planning on robbing something/someone.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B]"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." [/B][/QUOTE]
It always makes me laugh when I think about the other meanings of Bear in that context:
...the right of the people to keep and to birth arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to depress prices of arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to support arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to cherish arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to appear like arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to escort arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to give/assist arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to extrude arms...
...the right of the people to keep and an inscription of arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to go toward arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to pertain to arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to push against arms...
I think thats all for now. I only selected a handfull of definitions out of the dictionary. :D
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Ive been in the military, I know exacly what a gun can do. Ive never been in a live firefight, but I dont think that applies here. Its because I know what a gun can do, and what guns make people do that I know guns dont belong in the hands of civilians, only highly trained professionals (police, military personell). [/B][/QUOTE]
That is why I am such a supporter of gun safety laws, and making responsible gun owners. Something the NRA cares little for so long as they can put a gun in every kidnergardners hands.
When I was in the Marines, I was a rifle pistol coach, I saw plenty of idiots in the military that didnt know or didnt care about how to properly handle a weapon. Regardless of training. I kicked a Lt. off of my range once, he tried to write me up for it, the Range safety officer backed me up and confirmed that the Lt was a safety violator.
So just being in the military isnt enough. But I know plenty of civilians like myself that are responsible safe gun owners.
Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns"
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" [/B][/QUOTE]
That's a nice, cliche soundbyte, but not terribly useful. Do you have a problem with heroin being illegal for personal use or sale over the counter? Narcotic prescription pain killers? 25mm gatling guns? Man-portable surface to air missiles? Nukes? Biological/chemical weapons?
1. The ORIGINAL 1780's debates surrounding the adoption of the second ammendement cast a more favorible interpretation of the right of individuals to possess arms.
No offense to you JohnD its not the words in the construction of the sentance that people mess up, originaly the militia clause was seperated from the rest via a semi-colon which more correctly gives idea what they were getting at.
The National Guard isnt quite a militia , it is an orginized reserve under the jurisdiction of the Defense department. There are still laws on the books defining the unorganized militia.
Next as to the Florida Law, the media has really, really messed up the story.
I present to you the [URL=http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb0436er.html&Directory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html/]THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE BILL (SB-436) DUN DUN DUNNNN![/URL]
The CNN and BBC articles have it all wrong. Previously florida state law said that individuals in their own car or own house had a duty to flee when facing a forceful assualt on/in their property, and only if unable to flee were they able to use leathal force.
This law changes it so that if your in your own house, or car, you can assume anyone who uses force to intrude and is threatning means leathal harm and react accordingly without attempting to retreat first. its implimenting whats known as the "Castle Doctrine" which is actually a old hallmark of the english common law system.
This does not mean if you walk down the street and cap somebody you got in an argument with you get to claim self defense.
This is one of those cases where a big stir has been created by the media over something thats not real.
Either through ignorance or shear incompetance they got EVERY SINGLE CRITICAL DETAIL wrong.
This IS implementing the ability to defend your home and car, NOT for just being on the street, the first paragraph of the article is either a utter lie, or written by an incompetant.
This is why the media outlets have taken some black eyes lately.
Reaver: in this case you shouldnt care, that is an acceptable position to take.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]So you don't believe that guns belong in the hands of civilians, period? Responsible users and irresponsible users alike?
One thing I find sort of funny is how you say guns should only be in the possession of police or military personnel. Now, I don't know the statistics, but I wouldn't say there aren't any police officers and military servicemen who are able to misuse their firearms. [/B][/QUOTE]
Theres always some problem with any idea, you just have to use the one idea with the least amount of problems..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]That is why I am such a supporter of gun safety laws, and making responsible gun owners. Something the NRA cares little for so long as they can put a gun in every kidnergardners hands.
When I was in the Marines, I was a rifle pistol coach, I saw plenty of idiots in the military that didnt know or didnt care about how to properly handle a weapon. Regardless of training. I kicked a Lt. off of my range once, he tried to write me up for it, the Range safety officer backed me up and confirmed that the Lt was a safety violator.
So just being in the military isnt enough. But I know plenty of civilians like myself that are responsible safe gun owners. [/B][/QUOTE]
At least people in the military have a use for guns. Civilians dont. Unless they plan to kill someone or rob a mall or somesuch..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]At least people in the military have a use for guns. Civilians dont. Unless they plan to kill someone or rob a mall or somesuch.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to disagree here, mate. What about self-defense, such as the protection if one's family against intruders in the home?
I am wary of people carrying guns around as a means of self defence on the [i]street,[/i] but when it comes to protecting your home, I think that's a different matter.
However, I agree with you that responsible gun ownership should be paramount.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]I have to disagree here, mate. What about self-defense, such as the protection if one's family against intruders in the home?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life. Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..
Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.
Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem..
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
if you want to have something to defend your home/family with, why not just get a tazer or some other non-lethal device?
maybe I dont want a gun to defend my home, maybe I just want a gun to shoot.
Im guessing you have never fired a gun before, but when I was in the Marines I shot competition and I loved it. I like just going to the range and shooting. Its a sport/hobby however you want to look at it.
Im buying an AR (M-16 lookalike) just for sole purpose of shooting it on a range again.
So just for a second forget all the defend your home stuff, forget the law and just for a second consider that some people are gun owners because they like to shoot.
If there is anyone here who knows who Marine Corps Gunnery Sergent Carlos Hathcock is, I met his son who is (or was in 2000) a Marine Guuny. I got to shoot next to him on the 500 yard line on team competition day, and I outshot him. Gunny Hathcock Jr is on the Marine Corps rifle team.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life.[/B][/QUOTE]
True. Ideally you shouldn't have to kill anyone in any situation (spammers excluded, of course ;)). But realistically, I think there are two main reasons for using lethal force in a self defense situation where you believe your life is seriously threatened:
1) In the case of defending yourself with a weapon at your disposal (in which case, you should assume that any force you exert with the weapon will be lethal), you should use that weapon if you feel it is the only way you can make sure you (or your close ones) survive the situation.
2) In the case of defending yourself while you're unarmed, you're in a whole lot more complicated situation. You often won't have time to assess whether the attack you're facing is life-threatening to you. Knife attackers very often palm their knives so you don't see them coming. And you won't really know if a guy you're fighting hand-to-hand intends to kill you unless he makes it explicitly obvious. It's not just about using direct lethal force by crushing his throat, gouging out his eyeballs or stomping his face in either, but you also face the very real possibility that if you hit him, he'll fall down and hit his head on the pavement, curb or another hard object in your environment and take serious, if not lethal damage. People have been put to jail for defending themselves in the aforementioned situation. I don't think I should have to not only focus on surviving, but be concerned about the safety of the person who's attacking me, and possibly trying to kill me, as well. It just doesn't make sense.
If someone breaks into your house, can you call the cops and realistically expect them to get to you in time to handle the entire situation? Even if it's not a burglar, but a rapist and/or murderer? Would you take that chance with your wife sleeping next to you and your kids in the room down the hall by themselves? I really wouldn't want to, but where I used to live, I'd either have to hope that the intruder wouldn't have time to harm anyone in my house, or go after him with the likely consequences of putting some damage on him and going to jail for it. I truly do find it ridiculous when people who have never seen or experienced the ugliness of an attack on innocent people can sit in a court and say that a person who refuses to be a sheep among the wolves deserves to be imprisoned for not letting an aggressor take control over his life and safety.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..
Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.[/b][/quote]
What makes you think burglars don't already have and use weapons? I'm sure there are statistics out there somewhere, but think about it also, if you were a burglar, would you worry about carrying an illegal weapon on you for protection if you were already commiting yourself to the illegal action of breaking into someone's home? If you get caught, you're fucked anyway.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem..[/b][/quote]
I don't think protecting family is another thing at all. I think it goes into the exact same category. Depending on how much your family likes you, they want to see you alive just as much as you do, and vice versa.
If all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, you may be right, it might not be a problem, but that's not the current state of affairs. Choosing to defend yourself is a matter of preference, of course, but I wouldn't like to make myself vulnerable while waiting for such utopian circumstances to come to pass.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]if you want to have something to defend your home/family with, why not just get a tazer or some other non-lethal device? [/B][/QUOTE]
Non-lethal devices are notorious for working on certain people and not working on other people. Drugs, adrenaline and many other things can affect the performance of tazers, pepper sprays, maces and other devices, even to the point of them being downright ineffective. Sometimes lethal force is the only alternative if you want your ass to stay in one piece.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]If there is anyone here who knows who Marine Corps Gunnery Sergent Carlos Hathcock is, I met his son who is (or was in 2000) a Marine Guuny. I got to shoot next to him on the 500 yard line on team competition day, and I outshot him. Gunny Hathcock Jr is on the Marine Corps rifle team. [/B][/QUOTE]
Damn, that's sweet. I've read the same book about Gunny Hathcock about 4 times.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]maybe I dont want a gun to defend my home, maybe I just want a gun to shoot.
Im guessing you have never fired a gun before, but when I was in the Marines I shot competition and I loved it. I like just going to the range and shooting. Its a sport/hobby however you want to look at it.
So just for a second forget all the defend your home stuff, forget the law and just for a second consider that some people are gun owners because they like to shoot. [/quote] My father's one of those people, and honestly, I want to be come one of those people at some point.
I personally like guns, I've shot many times before. Granted they were mostly rifles and shotguns (some nice vintage ones, too, like a Garand and Arisaka, as well as a muzzle-loader musket), and I'm not sure my father owns many pistols other than his conservation service revolver.
But my point; I like guns myself, I respect the people who use them responsibly.
But I heartily disagree with the pedestal they've been put upon.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, there. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to break the law, break into your home, and thusly violate your propery and piece of mind, deserves everything they get. If a burglar gets shot by a homeowner, as in the case of Tony Martin; good, they had it coming.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..[/B][/QUOTE]
That's speculation. Who's to say that gun ownership at home wouldn't [i]prevent[/i] burglary?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.[/B][/QUOTE]
Again, I advocate the maxim "An Englishman's Home is his Castle". As soon as you violate someone's property, their rights should end, [b]THERE[/b]. Henceforth, homeowners should be perfectly within their rights to shoot. It's the criminal's fault for being there in the first place.
It's a controvercial stance to take, I know, but I firmly believe that living a country which appears to favour the criminal rather than the victim, the Justice System needs a severe ovehaul.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem.. [/B][/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not advocating widespread gun ownership, and especially not the carrying of guns on the street. However, I sincerely believe that a freeborn, law-abiding Englishman should have the rights to defend his propety without fear of recrimination.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]What makes you think burglars don't already have and use weapons? I'm sure there are statistics out there somewhere, but think about it also, if you were a burglar, would you worry about carrying an illegal weapon on you for protection if you were already commiting yourself to the illegal action of breaking into someone's home? If you get caught, you're fucked anyway.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Theres laws against breaking and entering, and theres laws about possessing guns (here in Sweden), and if you get caught in the possession of a gun, you get a harder punishment than if youre breaking and entering. Plus, its not very easy to aquire a gun here. So, if I were a burglar, I would think twice about getting a gun.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
I don't think protecting family is another thing at all. I think it goes into the exact same category. Depending on how much your family likes you, they want to see you alive just as much as you do, and vice versa.[/B][/QUOTE]
So, you think protecting your family is the same thing as protecting your property? In that case, we disagree.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, there. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to break the law, break into your home, and thusly violate your propery and piece of mind, deserves everything they get. If a burglar gets shot by a homeowner, as in the case of Tony Martin; good, they had it coming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then, we are in disagreement. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. You dont get that when youre dead.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[b]That's speculation. Who's to say that gun ownership at home wouldn't [i]prevent[/i] burglary? [/B][/QUOTE]
I can only see it from my perspective, if I were a burglar, and everyone had guns at home, I would get one. I wouldnt if they didnt (because laws are harder on possession of guns than breaking and entering here in Sweden).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]Again, I advocate the maxim "An Englishman's Home is his Castle". As soon as you violate someone's property, their rights should end, [b]THERE[/b]. Henceforth, homeowners should be perfectly within their rights to shoot. It's the criminal's fault for being there in the first place.
It's a controvercial stance to take, I know, but I firmly believe that living a country which appears to favour the criminal rather than the victim, the Justice System needs a severe ovehaul.[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Then, we are in disagreement. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. You dont get that when youre dead.[/B][/QUOTE]
If someone is is enough of a social deviant to encroach on someone else's life and security, then in my opinion, they don't deserve a second chance. You give an inch, they take a mile.
I don't know whether you've heard the horror stories of the elderly being the victims of burglary, and being killed by intruders over here. Saying it makes my blood boil, doesn't go far enough.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]I can only see it from my perspective, if I were a burglar, and everyone had guns at home, I would get one. I wouldnt if they didnt (because laws are harder on possession of guns than breaking and entering here in Sweden). [/B][/QUOTE]
The situation is different here in Britain. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. I'm not actually advocating domestic gun ownership, I'm just condoning the actions of homeowners who have to kill to defend themselves and their property.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Once again, we are in disagreement.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think we can to agree to disagree on this one. ;)
I hate "agree to disagree", nothing can be done, the synergy stops and the system dies. Case point: the polerization in the united states.
I have no numbers, but I do know a good many roberies are the means to feed a drug addiction. With highly addictive lab drugs like meth it is very easy for a strong willed individual who was simply curious to become addicted and will even become a criminal to finance the addiction. Yes buglary is a crime, but drug addiction is a medical condition (no different than someone with mental retardation buglarizing because they simply don't have the capacity to know any better). If you want to reduce the rates (note: I did not say eliminate because not all buglaries are drug related), then you will have better luck by reducing drug abuse than by stocking all homes with guns.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Theres always some problem with any idea, you just have to use the one idea with the least amount of problems..
Its how it works in Sweden, and it does work. [/B][/QUOTE]
The fundamental problem with your argument is that your arguing from a single example an analagy that does NOT hold.
Sweden is a pretty homogenious country with a relativly docile population, and fairly low population density (for a european nation)
The rest of the world is ALOT messier then Sweden, and things are alot uglier
In fact hasnt crime in sweden in everything save murder been on the increase over the past say 20 years?
where as despite what people claim, US crime rates while fluctuing wildly actually hit their peak in the late 80's early 90's and have been dropping.
Secondly the motivation for crimes in the US seemingly revolves around drugs, however there are other substantial issues involved. The gang warfare in the has now started to tranced turf battles and taken on the appearances similar to inernacene tribal warfare.
Secondly on the topic of tribal warfare, burgers are ALREADY
fairly well armed, and not just with guns, in the US guns are responsible for only about 60% of total violent deaths, the other 40 are divided up amongst stabbings and blunt trauma (with a few weird things thrown in) As situations in africa have shown us, a machette is still a highly effective tool for killing (its estimated that over a 100,000 people who died in the rwandan genoicde were killed by machettes)
Another example is Australia, while passing stricter gun laws, they experienced little impact on their homicide rate. Mainly because they tend to have a fairly low homicide rate anyways. Their law was in reaction to one statisticly aberant event. However violent crime rates there are tending to increase (depending on where your at)
So they have now taken to banning anything even remotely dangerous, an example of the "Banning" logic taken to far.
Anyways all Im really trying to say is that for a variety of reasons, what works in Sweden might not work everywhere.
And honestly if Sweden ends up having problems with immigrants like it looks like the rest of europe is going to have, it might not work in Sweden.
Lastly Messiah, many of us here DO have firearms experience, thats fairly more extensive then just the typical conscprition period you serve in Sweden (if you served extra enlistment time I appologize for making this generalization)
SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
I havent served in the military but Ive been handling guns since I was 6 and and owned a firearm since I was 8 and inhereted my first .410 under .22 over.
I am quite well versed with the power of weapons, both theoretica and their practical effects on living beings.
I disagree with your "Everybody deserves a second change" sentiment. As noble as it may sound in theory, in practice it allows predators out to commit more predation. And there are inviduals out there who definatly, and completely enjoy preying upon the innocent.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B] Secondly on the topic of tribal warfare, burgers are ALREADY
fairly well armed[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that's quite understandable, they get eaten by the thousands if not millions or billions every day by our race. Sooner or later, everyone comes to a point where they have to say "Enough."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]So, you think protecting your family is the same thing as protecting your property? In that case, we disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, misunderstood you there. Thought you meant to say that protecting your family is different from protecting yourself.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]
SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey I resemble that remark.
4 years active 2 years reserve, 3.5 years as a rifle/pistol coach and 3 years as a competition shooter.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]The fundamental problem with your argument is that your arguing from a single example an analagy that does NOT hold.
Sweden is a pretty homogenious country with a relativly docile population, and fairly low population density (for a european nation)
The rest of the world is ALOT messier then Sweden, and things are alot uglier
[/B][/QUOTE]
There are alot of other countries in Europe where laws are as strict, or stricter than Sweden, I only used Sweden as an example because I live here. And it is true, crime rates have been going up, but mostly since the russian mafia has taken an interest in Sweden. The police however have been stepping up their operations against them the last few years.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Lastly Messiah, many of us here DO have firearms experience, thats fairly more extensive then just the typical conscprition period you serve in Sweden (if you served extra enlistment time I appologize for making this generalization)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Two years of military service.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
I havent served in the military but Ive been handling guns since I was 6 and and owned a firearm since I was 8 and inhereted my first .410 under .22 over.
I am quite well versed with the power of weapons, both theoretica and their practical effects on living beings.[/B][/QUOTE]
I would say youre used to weapons to such a degree that you cannot fancy a world without them. In fact since you were handling guns since you were 6, probably you cant. I dont mean to flame, but thats how it sounds to me.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]I have no numbers, but I do know a good many roberies are the means to feed a drug addiction. With highly addictive lab drugs like meth it is very easy for a strong willed individual who was simply curious to become addicted and will even become a criminal to finance the addiction. [/B][/QUOTE]
But that's not the homeowner's problem.
Being "curious" is not an excuse. If someone finds themselves being addicted to a certain medicine or narcotic, they are well within their abilities to seek medical help, at least here in the UK. (I work in a chemists which provides methodone to former heroin addicts, I should know.)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Yes buglary is a crime, but drug addiction is a medical condition (no different than someone with mental retardation buglarizing because they simply don't have the capacity to know any better). If you want to reduce the rates (note: I did not say eliminate because not all buglaries are drug related), then you will have better luck by reducing drug abuse than by stocking all homes
with guns. [/B][/QUOTE]
What's more, you can't compare mental instability, which is largely inherited or developed naturally; with drug addiction, which in the case of illegal narcotics, is the [b]fault of the individual.[/b] The latter can be prevented, the former cannot.
Comments
[B]Ive been in the military, I know exacly what a gun can do. Ive never been in a live firefight, but I dont think that applies here. Its because I know what a gun can do, and what guns make people do that I know guns dont belong in the hands of civilians, only highly trained professionals (police, military personell). [/B][/QUOTE]
So you don't believe that guns belong in the hands of civilians, period? Responsible users and irresponsible users alike?
One thing I find sort of funny is how you say guns should only be in the possession of police or military personnel. Now, I don't know the statistics, but I wouldn't say there aren't any police officers and military servicemen who are able to misuse their firearms.
I hate to say it but the "Right to Bear Arms" says nothing about the "Right to Conceal Arms."
I have no problem with people having weapons. I have a problem with people concealing that they have them while walking down the street. There isn't any need to do that unless you are planning on robbing something/someone.
[B]"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." [/B][/QUOTE]
It always makes me laugh when I think about the other meanings of Bear in that context:
...the right of the people to keep and to birth arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to depress prices of arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to support arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to cherish arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to appear like arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to escort arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to give/assist arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to extrude arms...
...the right of the people to keep and an inscription of arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to go toward arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to pertain to arms...
...the right of the people to keep and to push against arms...
I think thats all for now. I only selected a handfull of definitions out of the dictionary. :D
[B]Ive been in the military, I know exacly what a gun can do. Ive never been in a live firefight, but I dont think that applies here. Its because I know what a gun can do, and what guns make people do that I know guns dont belong in the hands of civilians, only highly trained professionals (police, military personell). [/B][/QUOTE]
That is why I am such a supporter of gun safety laws, and making responsible gun owners. Something the NRA cares little for so long as they can put a gun in every kidnergardners hands.
When I was in the Marines, I was a rifle pistol coach, I saw plenty of idiots in the military that didnt know or didnt care about how to properly handle a weapon. Regardless of training. I kicked a Lt. off of my range once, he tried to write me up for it, the Range safety officer backed me up and confirmed that the Lt was a safety violator.
So just being in the military isnt enough. But I know plenty of civilians like myself that are responsible safe gun owners.
Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns"
[B]Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" [/B][/QUOTE]
That's a nice, cliche soundbyte, but not terribly useful. Do you have a problem with heroin being illegal for personal use or sale over the counter? Narcotic prescription pain killers? 25mm gatling guns? Man-portable surface to air missiles? Nukes? Biological/chemical weapons?
No offense to you JohnD its not the words in the construction of the sentance that people mess up, originaly the militia clause was seperated from the rest via a semi-colon which more correctly gives idea what they were getting at.
The National Guard isnt quite a militia , it is an orginized reserve under the jurisdiction of the Defense department. There are still laws on the books defining the unorganized militia.
Next as to the Florida Law, the media has really, really messed up the story.
I present to you the [URL=http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=session&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=sb0436er.html&Directory=session/2005/Senate/bills/billtext/html/]THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE BILL (SB-436) DUN DUN DUNNNN![/URL]
The CNN and BBC articles have it all wrong. Previously florida state law said that individuals in their own car or own house had a duty to flee when facing a forceful assualt on/in their property, and only if unable to flee were they able to use leathal force.
This law changes it so that if your in your own house, or car, you can assume anyone who uses force to intrude and is threatning means leathal harm and react accordingly without attempting to retreat first. its implimenting whats known as the "Castle Doctrine" which is actually a old hallmark of the english common law system.
This does not mean if you walk down the street and cap somebody you got in an argument with you get to claim self defense.
that's much saner than it sounded.
Also: Guns never protected freedom, they're just a tool to erase the fuckups of a previous generation.
Either through ignorance or shear incompetance they got EVERY SINGLE CRITICAL DETAIL wrong.
This IS implementing the ability to defend your home and car, NOT for just being on the street, the first paragraph of the article is either a utter lie, or written by an incompetant.
This is why the media outlets have taken some black eyes lately.
Reaver: in this case you shouldnt care, that is an acceptable position to take.
[B]So you don't believe that guns belong in the hands of civilians, period? Responsible users and irresponsible users alike?
One thing I find sort of funny is how you say guns should only be in the possession of police or military personnel. Now, I don't know the statistics, but I wouldn't say there aren't any police officers and military servicemen who are able to misuse their firearms. [/B][/QUOTE]
Theres always some problem with any idea, you just have to use the one idea with the least amount of problems..
Its how it works in Sweden, and it does work.
[B]That is why I am such a supporter of gun safety laws, and making responsible gun owners. Something the NRA cares little for so long as they can put a gun in every kidnergardners hands.
When I was in the Marines, I was a rifle pistol coach, I saw plenty of idiots in the military that didnt know or didnt care about how to properly handle a weapon. Regardless of training. I kicked a Lt. off of my range once, he tried to write me up for it, the Range safety officer backed me up and confirmed that the Lt was a safety violator.
So just being in the military isnt enough. But I know plenty of civilians like myself that are responsible safe gun owners. [/B][/QUOTE]
At least people in the military have a use for guns. Civilians dont. Unless they plan to kill someone or rob a mall or somesuch..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Besides ever here the old saying "If all guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns" [/B][/QUOTE]
And the police, and the military..
[B]At least people in the military have a use for guns. Civilians dont. Unless they plan to kill someone or rob a mall or somesuch.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to disagree here, mate. What about self-defense, such as the protection if one's family against intruders in the home?
I am wary of people carrying guns around as a means of self defence on the [i]street,[/i] but when it comes to protecting your home, I think that's a different matter.
However, I agree with you that responsible gun ownership should be paramount.
Regards,
Morden
[B]I have to disagree here, mate. What about self-defense, such as the protection if one's family against intruders in the home?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life. Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..
Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.
Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem..
Im guessing you have never fired a gun before, but when I was in the Marines I shot competition and I loved it. I like just going to the range and shooting. Its a sport/hobby however you want to look at it.
Im buying an AR (M-16 lookalike) just for sole purpose of shooting it on a range again.
So just for a second forget all the defend your home stuff, forget the law and just for a second consider that some people are gun owners because they like to shoot.
If there is anyone here who knows who Marine Corps Gunnery Sergent Carlos Hathcock is, I met his son who is (or was in 2000) a Marine Guuny. I got to shoot next to him on the 500 yard line on team competition day, and I outshot him. Gunny Hathcock Jr is on the Marine Corps rifle team.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life.[/B][/QUOTE]
True. Ideally you shouldn't have to kill anyone in any situation (spammers excluded, of course ;)). But realistically, I think there are two main reasons for using lethal force in a self defense situation where you believe your life is seriously threatened:
1) In the case of defending yourself with a weapon at your disposal (in which case, you should assume that any force you exert with the weapon will be lethal), you should use that weapon if you feel it is the only way you can make sure you (or your close ones) survive the situation.
2) In the case of defending yourself while you're unarmed, you're in a whole lot more complicated situation. You often won't have time to assess whether the attack you're facing is life-threatening to you. Knife attackers very often palm their knives so you don't see them coming. And you won't really know if a guy you're fighting hand-to-hand intends to kill you unless he makes it explicitly obvious. It's not just about using direct lethal force by crushing his throat, gouging out his eyeballs or stomping his face in either, but you also face the very real possibility that if you hit him, he'll fall down and hit his head on the pavement, curb or another hard object in your environment and take serious, if not lethal damage. People have been put to jail for defending themselves in the aforementioned situation. I don't think I should have to not only focus on surviving, but be concerned about the safety of the person who's attacking me, and possibly trying to kill me, as well. It just doesn't make sense.
If someone breaks into your house, can you call the cops and realistically expect them to get to you in time to handle the entire situation? Even if it's not a burglar, but a rapist and/or murderer? Would you take that chance with your wife sleeping next to you and your kids in the room down the hall by themselves? I really wouldn't want to, but where I used to live, I'd either have to hope that the intruder wouldn't have time to harm anyone in my house, or go after him with the likely consequences of putting some damage on him and going to jail for it. I truly do find it ridiculous when people who have never seen or experienced the ugliness of an attack on innocent people can sit in a court and say that a person who refuses to be a sheep among the wolves deserves to be imprisoned for not letting an aggressor take control over his life and safety.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..
Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.[/b][/quote]
What makes you think burglars don't already have and use weapons? I'm sure there are statistics out there somewhere, but think about it also, if you were a burglar, would you worry about carrying an illegal weapon on you for protection if you were already commiting yourself to the illegal action of breaking into someone's home? If you get caught, you're fucked anyway.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem..[/b][/quote]
I don't think protecting family is another thing at all. I think it goes into the exact same category. Depending on how much your family likes you, they want to see you alive just as much as you do, and vice versa.
If all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, you may be right, it might not be a problem, but that's not the current state of affairs. Choosing to defend yourself is a matter of preference, of course, but I wouldn't like to make myself vulnerable while waiting for such utopian circumstances to come to pass.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]if you want to have something to defend your home/family with, why not just get a tazer or some other non-lethal device? [/B][/QUOTE]
Non-lethal devices are notorious for working on certain people and not working on other people. Drugs, adrenaline and many other things can affect the performance of tazers, pepper sprays, maces and other devices, even to the point of them being downright ineffective. Sometimes lethal force is the only alternative if you want your ass to stay in one piece.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]If there is anyone here who knows who Marine Corps Gunnery Sergent Carlos Hathcock is, I met his son who is (or was in 2000) a Marine Guuny. I got to shoot next to him on the 500 yard line on team competition day, and I outshot him. Gunny Hathcock Jr is on the Marine Corps rifle team. [/B][/QUOTE]
Damn, that's sweet. I've read the same book about Gunny Hathcock about 4 times.
[B]maybe I dont want a gun to defend my home, maybe I just want a gun to shoot.
Im guessing you have never fired a gun before, but when I was in the Marines I shot competition and I loved it. I like just going to the range and shooting. Its a sport/hobby however you want to look at it.
So just for a second forget all the defend your home stuff, forget the law and just for a second consider that some people are gun owners because they like to shoot. [/quote] My father's one of those people, and honestly, I want to be come one of those people at some point.
I personally like guns, I've shot many times before. Granted they were mostly rifles and shotguns (some nice vintage ones, too, like a Garand and Arisaka, as well as a muzzle-loader musket), and I'm not sure my father owns many pistols other than his conservation service revolver.
But my point; I like guns myself, I respect the people who use them responsibly.
But I heartily disagree with the pedestal they've been put upon.
[B]Im highly sceptical about using guns as self defence. Protecting the house against intruders shouldnt be at the cost of a life. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, there. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to break the law, break into your home, and thusly violate your propery and piece of mind, deserves everything they get. If a burglar gets shot by a homeowner, as in the case of Tony Martin; good, they had it coming.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Plus, if everyone had guns at home, the burglars would have to get guns so they could defend themselves..[/B][/QUOTE]
That's speculation. Who's to say that gun ownership at home wouldn't [i]prevent[/i] burglary?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Also, if the burglars thought that the homeowners would have guns, they wouldnt hesitate to shoot before they threatened so to speak.[/B][/QUOTE]
Again, I advocate the maxim "An Englishman's Home is his Castle". As soon as you violate someone's property, their rights should end, [b]THERE[/b]. Henceforth, homeowners should be perfectly within their rights to shoot. It's the criminal's fault for being there in the first place.
It's a controvercial stance to take, I know, but I firmly believe that living a country which appears to favour the criminal rather than the victim, the Justice System needs a severe ovehaul.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Protecting familymembers is another thing of course, and if all the money going into the arms business would instead go to the police, it would probably not even be a problem.. [/B][/QUOTE]
Again, I'm not advocating widespread gun ownership, and especially not the carrying of guns on the street. However, I sincerely believe that a freeborn, law-abiding Englishman should have the rights to defend his propety without fear of recrimination.
Regards,
Morden
[B]
Damn, that's sweet. I've read the same book about Gunny Hathcock about 4 times. [/B][/QUOTE]
Carlos Jr was real cool about it too. He knows how much his dad is literally a legend in the Corps, he was signing books for us. Great guy.
[B]What makes you think burglars don't already have and use weapons? I'm sure there are statistics out there somewhere, but think about it also, if you were a burglar, would you worry about carrying an illegal weapon on you for protection if you were already commiting yourself to the illegal action of breaking into someone's home? If you get caught, you're fucked anyway.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Theres laws against breaking and entering, and theres laws about possessing guns (here in Sweden), and if you get caught in the possession of a gun, you get a harder punishment than if youre breaking and entering. Plus, its not very easy to aquire a gun here. So, if I were a burglar, I would think twice about getting a gun.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
I don't think protecting family is another thing at all. I think it goes into the exact same category. Depending on how much your family likes you, they want to see you alive just as much as you do, and vice versa.[/B][/QUOTE]
So, you think protecting your family is the same thing as protecting your property? In that case, we disagree.
[B]I'm afraid I have to disagree with you again, there. Anyone who takes it upon themselves to break the law, break into your home, and thusly violate your propery and piece of mind, deserves everything they get. If a burglar gets shot by a homeowner, as in the case of Tony Martin; good, they had it coming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Then, we are in disagreement. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. You dont get that when youre dead.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[b]That's speculation. Who's to say that gun ownership at home wouldn't [i]prevent[/i] burglary? [/B][/QUOTE]
I can only see it from my perspective, if I were a burglar, and everyone had guns at home, I would get one. I wouldnt if they didnt (because laws are harder on possession of guns than breaking and entering here in Sweden).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]Again, I advocate the maxim "An Englishman's Home is his Castle". As soon as you violate someone's property, their rights should end, [b]THERE[/b]. Henceforth, homeowners should be perfectly within their rights to shoot. It's the criminal's fault for being there in the first place.
It's a controvercial stance to take, I know, but I firmly believe that living a country which appears to favour the criminal rather than the victim, the Justice System needs a severe ovehaul.[/B][/QUOTE]
Once again, we are in disagreement..
[B]Then, we are in disagreement. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. You dont get that when youre dead.[/B][/QUOTE]
If someone is is enough of a social deviant to encroach on someone else's life and security, then in my opinion, they don't deserve a second chance. You give an inch, they take a mile.
I don't know whether you've heard the horror stories of the elderly being the victims of burglary, and being killed by intruders over here. Saying it makes my blood boil, doesn't go far enough.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]I can only see it from my perspective, if I were a burglar, and everyone had guns at home, I would get one. I wouldnt if they didnt (because laws are harder on possession of guns than breaking and entering here in Sweden). [/B][/QUOTE]
The situation is different here in Britain. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the world. I'm not actually advocating domestic gun ownership, I'm just condoning the actions of homeowners who have to kill to defend themselves and their property.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Messiah [/i]
[B]Once again, we are in disagreement.. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think we can to agree to disagree on this one. ;)
Regards,
Morden
I have no numbers, but I do know a good many roberies are the means to feed a drug addiction. With highly addictive lab drugs like meth it is very easy for a strong willed individual who was simply curious to become addicted and will even become a criminal to finance the addiction. Yes buglary is a crime, but drug addiction is a medical condition (no different than someone with mental retardation buglarizing because they simply don't have the capacity to know any better). If you want to reduce the rates (note: I did not say eliminate because not all buglaries are drug related), then you will have better luck by reducing drug abuse than by stocking all homes with guns.
[B]Theres always some problem with any idea, you just have to use the one idea with the least amount of problems..
Its how it works in Sweden, and it does work. [/B][/QUOTE]
The fundamental problem with your argument is that your arguing from a single example an analagy that does NOT hold.
Sweden is a pretty homogenious country with a relativly docile population, and fairly low population density (for a european nation)
The rest of the world is ALOT messier then Sweden, and things are alot uglier
In fact hasnt crime in sweden in everything save murder been on the increase over the past say 20 years?
where as despite what people claim, US crime rates while fluctuing wildly actually hit their peak in the late 80's early 90's and have been dropping.
Secondly the motivation for crimes in the US seemingly revolves around drugs, however there are other substantial issues involved. The gang warfare in the has now started to tranced turf battles and taken on the appearances similar to inernacene tribal warfare.
Secondly on the topic of tribal warfare, burgers are ALREADY
fairly well armed, and not just with guns, in the US guns are responsible for only about 60% of total violent deaths, the other 40 are divided up amongst stabbings and blunt trauma (with a few weird things thrown in) As situations in africa have shown us, a machette is still a highly effective tool for killing (its estimated that over a 100,000 people who died in the rwandan genoicde were killed by machettes)
Another example is Australia, while passing stricter gun laws, they experienced little impact on their homicide rate. Mainly because they tend to have a fairly low homicide rate anyways. Their law was in reaction to one statisticly aberant event. However violent crime rates there are tending to increase (depending on where your at)
So they have now taken to banning anything even remotely dangerous, an example of the "Banning" logic taken to far.
Anyways all Im really trying to say is that for a variety of reasons, what works in Sweden might not work everywhere.
And honestly if Sweden ends up having problems with immigrants like it looks like the rest of europe is going to have, it might not work in Sweden.
Lastly Messiah, many of us here DO have firearms experience, thats fairly more extensive then just the typical conscprition period you serve in Sweden (if you served extra enlistment time I appologize for making this generalization)
SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
I havent served in the military but Ive been handling guns since I was 6 and and owned a firearm since I was 8 and inhereted my first .410 under .22 over.
I am quite well versed with the power of weapons, both theoretica and their practical effects on living beings.
I disagree with your "Everybody deserves a second change" sentiment. As noble as it may sound in theory, in practice it allows predators out to commit more predation. And there are inviduals out there who definatly, and completely enjoy preying upon the innocent.
[B] Secondly on the topic of tribal warfare, burgers are ALREADY
fairly well armed[/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that's quite understandable, they get eaten by the thousands if not millions or billions every day by our race. Sooner or later, everyone comes to a point where they have to say "Enough."
[B]So, you think protecting your family is the same thing as protecting your property? In that case, we disagree. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sorry, misunderstood you there. Thought you meant to say that protecting your family is different from protecting yourself.
[B]
SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Hey I resemble that remark.
4 years active 2 years reserve, 3.5 years as a rifle/pistol coach and 3 years as a competition shooter.
[B]The fundamental problem with your argument is that your arguing from a single example an analagy that does NOT hold.
Sweden is a pretty homogenious country with a relativly docile population, and fairly low population density (for a european nation)
The rest of the world is ALOT messier then Sweden, and things are alot uglier
[/B][/QUOTE]
There are alot of other countries in Europe where laws are as strict, or stricter than Sweden, I only used Sweden as an example because I live here. And it is true, crime rates have been going up, but mostly since the russian mafia has taken an interest in Sweden. The police however have been stepping up their operations against them the last few years.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Lastly Messiah, many of us here DO have firearms experience, thats fairly more extensive then just the typical conscprition period you serve in Sweden (if you served extra enlistment time I appologize for making this generalization)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Two years of military service.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]SpiritOne as obnoxious as he may be probably served at least what 4 years active. (the standard US military enlistment period is about 6 years, depending on branch and other particulars)
I havent served in the military but Ive been handling guns since I was 6 and and owned a firearm since I was 8 and inhereted my first .410 under .22 over.
I am quite well versed with the power of weapons, both theoretica and their practical effects on living beings.[/B][/QUOTE]
I would say youre used to weapons to such a degree that you cannot fancy a world without them. In fact since you were handling guns since you were 6, probably you cant. I dont mean to flame, but thats how it sounds to me.
[B]I have no numbers, but I do know a good many roberies are the means to feed a drug addiction. With highly addictive lab drugs like meth it is very easy for a strong willed individual who was simply curious to become addicted and will even become a criminal to finance the addiction. [/B][/QUOTE]
But that's not the homeowner's problem.
Being "curious" is not an excuse. If someone finds themselves being addicted to a certain medicine or narcotic, they are well within their abilities to seek medical help, at least here in the UK. (I work in a chemists which provides methodone to former heroin addicts, I should know.)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]Yes buglary is a crime, but drug addiction is a medical condition (no different than someone with mental retardation buglarizing because they simply don't have the capacity to know any better). If you want to reduce the rates (note: I did not say eliminate because not all buglaries are drug related), then you will have better luck by reducing drug abuse than by stocking all homes
with guns. [/B][/QUOTE]
What's more, you can't compare mental instability, which is largely inherited or developed naturally; with drug addiction, which in the case of illegal narcotics, is the [b]fault of the individual.[/b] The latter can be prevented, the former cannot.
Regards,
Morden