Bikerdad:


Every example you have given described ending a problem, not solving it. Did defeating Hitler solve the problem of dictators committing genocide? No. Was the underlying belief in racial inequality and the treatment of blacks as less than human solved by the ending of slavery? No, it wasn't. Crime sprees and the lives of criminals can be ended through violence; yet the problem remains.

Guns and violence don't solve a single real problem. Not one. I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying there is never a place for violence - to end a problem. Just that, as history bears out, violence can never provide the long-term solution to a problem.

What are the chances that someone will attack you with a gun for no reason? Almost ZERO. If you live your life in so much fear about being assailed by criminals that you feel carrying a gun is necessary there is a problem. America is very safe even without assault weapons in every home.

I would like to draw attention to the true reason why the Second Amendment guarenteing the right to keep and bear arms was put in place, and why it is still relevant today and that the right to own and use a firearm is necessary to maintain a free state. The reason the second Amendment was written and passed was not merely for the purpose of self defense, it was put in place as a way for the citizens to protect their god-given rights(as secured by the Constitution) from a federal or state government if it should take those away. The people bearing arms is the only way for them to prevent tyrrany in the government and maintain their liberty. It is a fact that in the last century 170 million people have been outright murdered by their own governments, now to all those of you who claim to be against the right to bear arms, i pose this to you, would you like to give up your firearms, your only defense of your freedom against a tyrannical leader, I should hope not.

Proposed gun laws by liberals today are similar to those of past leaders of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, do you really want America to end up like Germany under Hitler's rule or pre-war Iraq...?



“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin

Sorry, I didn't realize that you were comparing something that we can accomplish, i.e., "ending a problem", against something that lies beyond the capacity of humanity, "solving the problem." As always, reality comes up short when stacked up against a utopian vision.

The "problem of dictators committing genocide" cannot be solved, once and for all, save by utterly exterminating humanity. (Of course, that does nothing re: hypothetical alien genocidal dictators, but since we won't be around to assess the problem, we can conclude that it doesn't matter....) The problem of a specific dictator committing genocide can be solved. The frequency or impact of genocidal dictators can be reduced, just as crime can be reduced but never eliminated.

Humanity, aka "human nature" is what it is. We will always have murderers, wannabe Hitlers, kleptomaniacs, psychotics, crimes of passion, etc. That's reality. And sometimes violence will be necessary to deal with them.

Bemoaning the failure to solve a problem that can't be solved isn't very productive, which is why I'm puzzled by your stance.

Of course, if you'd like to explore why and how we can "solve the problem", I encourage you to start a thread on the subject. It should be very interesting.


Rancid, pay close attention to what Liberty said, because the right of self-defense PREDATES the Constitution, and is the most fundamental right of all.

Glad you've never been the victim of a violent crime. 30 percent of women have (though not necessarily with a gun).

Sorry, biker, but we can solve the fundamental problem of violence. People solve it every day by renouncing violence, refusing to cause harm to others, by becoming peacemakers. Of course we can't impose some geopolitical solution to eradicate the possibility of genocidal tyrants. All change comes from within.

Guns are a means of expressing violence. When a person discovers the path beyond violence in their life, they will not need to carry a firearm, because they are walking on the path without fear.

Quarkhead, I have renounced violence every day of my life by refusing to harm others. I also had a license to carry while living in Miami, and kept a gun in every home I ever lived when the environment required it for my own and my family's protection. Guns are not simply a means of expressing violence. They are also a means of preventing violence by offering the weak an equalizing weapon in the face of the criminal strong.

Mrs. Pigpen poses a great point. And anyway, are you saying we can stop violence by being peacemakers? By not harming others? No. If a person wants to harm another person, they won't stop because you say it's bad. Violence is human nature. There's nothing else to it than that. Unless you have the technology and authority to genetically alter every single human in thw world, violence is never going to stop. This is why it's good to have firearms. This is why I support the NRA. They fund shooting programs that teach people how to use firearms safely, but "efficiently." They teach responsible and good shooting. This is what america needs. Not the banning of firearms.

I do not support banning firearms. I haven't ever said that.

I will stick by my conviction that we can only stop violence by not being violent ourselves. You're right, Bean - people won't stop being violent because "I say it's bad," but then, I don't go around preaching to people. I will, however, attempt to avoid and curb violence.

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving down the main street of the village. I came up behind a muscle car which was travelling slower than I was. I immediately slowed down, but soon, the car pulled over, let me pass, and then tailgated me to my destination. As I got out of my van, the angry young man shouted at me, "Man, what's your #@$%@ing problem riding my #$% like that?" I smiled and apologized, even though I hadn't done anything wrong. I said, "Man, I'm really sorry, I was in a hurry and didn't realize you were driving slower than me." Then, I moved on to, "dude, that's a really nice car, what you got under the hood?" He started talking about his car. Potential violence aborted. And you must understand, when he first yelled, you could see he was brimming with anger and violence. My first reaction would have been to counter him with, "I didn't tailgate you." But why worry about who's right and who's wrong in a case like that?

People don't need to be genetically altered to avoid violence. All they need is humility and a basic respect for others.

As for guns, hey, I have a 30-30 in my attic that I pull down every blue moon for some target shooting.

For a gun in your house to be useful for defense, wouldn't it need to be in a place where you could get to it very quickly? As in say, loaded and in a drawer beside your bed or something? If there's children in the house, that sounds dangerous, no matter what they have been taught about safety. Even one child accidently shooting himself or a friend is too many for me. By keeping your gun locked up safely (which in my mind negates its use for defense, unless you have enough warning), you reduce the chance of a mishap. By not even having a gun, that possibility is reduced to zero.

By the way, I don't keep ammunition in the house at all. When I shoot the gun, I buy some ammo and use it all, or give away what's left over. Thus, even if my children somehow got a hold of my rifle, they couldn't fire it.

A man in New York was convicted recently of shooting another man who entered his home and was standing in his son's bedroom. The resident was ex military and had tried to register his gun in New York. I have no idea why he didn't get his registration. He is now serving time in the same prison with the man who broke into his home. Forgive me, but I don't have a link to this story.

A woman and her son were beaten in San Jose recently and her daughter kidnapped, raped and thankfully is back home. Her mother and brother fought the man with all their might. He beat them brutally and still took her little girl.

I wonder if she had an unregistered gun and shot the man would she be serving time too.

What if that ex military man used his fist instead of the gun and lost the fight? What if his son was taken and raped.

When and why did we lose the right to protect our home and family?

This is exactly what gun shot victims thought, then, BANG. You can't play percentages with your life, are you feeling that lucky. [Well...do ya....punk?] Sorry, couldn't resist.

CP

Well, Quark, I agree with you that the way you handled the tailgating situation was very good. All I'm saying is that we can never rid the world of violence. And even at my age of 14, I must say that keeping a household firearm is a good thing. You have no idea how many people would, and do, say, "kid, do you know how dangerous that is? You probably don't even know how to handle a firearm." Truth is, I do. Due to good teaching, i know how o safely, and accurately, use a firearm. I too have a 30-30 in the house, as well as a 12 guage, two .22's, and an old colt revolver. I can load, use, and fire anyof these quickly and safely. In the instance that beladonna named, I wouldn't have hesitated in going and loading the 30-30 at all. The instant I knew someone hostile was in my house, I would've gotten it, and loaded all 8 shells. Would I kill the man? No. Wold I shoot him in the knee or a larger target like the hip? Without a doubt. Without the NRA-ILA and other organizations, we might not be able to have these firearms in our houses. And, the NRA teaches other people to use these firearms. Firearms can be helpful for defense, and fun for recreaton when used safely. And the best way to keep wackjobs from going crazy with firearms is too have good teaching programs as far as I'm concerned.

ConservPat, we play percentages with our lives every day. There's a much greater chance of dying in an automobile accident than getting shot randomly on the street. It's probably more dangerous to take a shower.

If you're carrying a concealed weapon, the only way for it to be useful is if you get the drop on the criminal. How often does that happen? If someone is sticking a gun in your face, are you (and CP, when I say you I don't mean you) gonna pull some Quickdraw McGraw move and whip out your gun? If someone mugs you with a knife, you're better off handing over your wallet than taking a chance and escalating the conflict to the level of life-and-death. I studied Tae Kwon Do for some years, and one thing my teacher always said was exactly that. We learned all kinds of ways to disarm an attacker, but he always said that unless you were fairly sure the assailant was going to hurt or kill you no matter what you do, your best bet is to hand over your money. It's not worth the risk of mishap.

Bean, that's great, but not every kid is trained in gun safety. And some kids die needlessly. There's no getting around the fact that every kid that dies as the result of playing around with their parents' gun is dying a needless death, a death which the absense of the gun would have prevented.

I support detailed restrictions on gun ownership. I think that there should be a long waiting period to buy a handgun, coupled with an exhaustive background check. I'm willing for my tax money to fund that. Gun owners and their families should be required to attend a certified gun safety course.

The right to bear arms is written in the constitution. But political rights are conditional. We accept that our freedom of speech is abrogated in specific and certain ways by law. We can say what we want, but if we threaten to kill the president, or yell "fire" or commit slander, there are consequences. We have a freedom of religion, but in that freedom we are also bound by defining laws. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. The right to bear arms is inalienable, but can be mitigated by laws.

And Bean, there is a reason the police are taught to aim for the torso. In a movie, the guy in the white hat can shoot out the bad guy's kneecap, but in real life, if you need to stop someone, you need to stop them. Again, my sensei used to say, "never start a fight; if you must fight to defend yourself, finish it." Take them down swiftly. Don't hold back.

But there are ways to prevent dying in a car crash, without fighting back there is no way to defend yourself. And, BTW, I too have studied Tae Kwon Do, but for those who haven't have no way of protecting themselves.

CP

Who goes around with a gun shooting random people in their homes? It's never happend to me. If you are getting robbed don't fight back, how's that? There is a much higher chance you will die from accidental poisoning than getting shot by another person. If you have a gun to protect your self you should get someone to taste your food for poison too.

Quark, I realize all of this. With the kneecap thing, I understand. I'm not one of those people who can make movie-ish amazing shots. In fact, when I see all of that (pardon my language) movie bullcrap, it kind of makes me mad. The point is, in some instances, you really can hit a person in the knee or that area of the leg. Torso shots are good, but I don't feel like pumping someone's chest full of 30-30 ammo unless I have to. I'd much rather shoot them in the hip or such a place.

I also understand completely about not all kids being able to shoot, or use guns safely. That's why I keep saying that I support the NRA and other such organizations that fund firearm training programs. I still remember being a really little kid, and watching one of those Eddie Eagle videos . Programs like these teach children of most ages to at least be safe around firearms and to not touch them.

I don't see the harm in it, what is the harm in carrying a gun, we have stated good reasons for carrying guns but why not carry them, I just don't get it.

CP

Well, here's the problem as I see it, especially with kidsmy own age:

Many kids, when simply called a name, will overreact and immediately begin pummeling the person who called them the name. Why do they do this? They don't stop and think that all it is is a name, and that they don't have to react physically. Can you imagine what the death rate would be like if these kid were carrying around a firearm?!

"Hey, Bozo! You dropped your book!"

*BANG!*

I'm not exaggerating here. Tons of kids these days (wow, I feel odd saying that ) wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone for even the slightest comment made about them.

Kids are bringing knives into school too, and we aren't criminalizing knives.

CP

I can't argue with that. If someone has proven themselves responsible enough to know how to handle a handgun and know when to use it, I'm all for concealed carry. With proper training, I can't think of a better deterrent to crime.

The problem with your argument, is you assume that all gun owners are law abiding moral conservatives. The reality is, most people don't care about anything other than who will win on American Idol.

My problem with not regulating handguns, is that people who shouldn't be trusted with a can opener can get a gun and hide that from people who know they shouldn't have it. If you're going to use the "well, they'll get one anyhow" argument, then start lobbying to build a separate lane for drunk drivers. I mean, they're going to do it anyhow.

We need to make it harder for the irresponsible to get handguns. Not easier.

I get what you're saying, but I just think that most people are good and responsible, maybe I'm being naive, but I think psychos are in the minority.

CP

Kids aren't going around stabbing each other. And they aren't bringing in bowie or ka-bar knives, they're usually pocket knives, and the kids don't carry them around with the intention of using them lethally.

And when you go around with a gun, you don't have the intent of killing anyone, it's just in case.

CP

I don't think you're bring naive. I think what you say is accurate.

The problem is numbers. How did this thread start?


The actual number is 99.8%, but they are both good numbers.

Have you calculated what .2% of 300,000,000 is? 600,000!

300 million is an enormous number of instruments designed to kill somebody. Most responsible people that want a gun have one. So, how do we reduce that 600,000 number? You don't reduce it by allowing anyone with a pulse to own a gun just because you want one. You do it by getting the guns produced into the right hands. And that's all many of us "gun grabbers" want. Most don't want to ban guns. We want to ban irresponsible idiots from owning them. And since being an irresponsible idiot isn't a felony, they are protected the same way the good guys are. And at 600,000 crimes with firearms a year, 15,000 murders with firearms a year, I have a serious problem with that.

I see where your coming from, but we can't ruin firearms and their uses for the rest of us, maybe there should be a test to own guns.

CP

Pat, if I may call you that, they don't go around with the intention of killing people with guns, that's true. I'm afraid I can't explain why, I'm not the best at psycho-analyzing my peers, but there's just something different to them about having a gun than there is with a knife. Maybe it's because of all the movies and games, lots of these crazy kids are impressionable. In movies and games, people don't go around knifing each other, they shoot each other. Knives are cheap to buy, and firearms aren't. This might be another factor. Many kids desire things that are harder to get,: They think that because they're more expensive, they're better to have. It's because of reasons like this that we don't need special knife-control laws.

And what sort of test would you give to people for the right to bear arms, anyway?

Have someone insult them. If they attack the insulter and beat the snot out of them, they shouldn't have a gun.

Hey! That's not a bad idea. Sometimes the solution is in the simplest answer.

A lot of kniving and stabbing deaths occur every year, they are just as dangerous as guns, how can you distinguish between the two?

CP

OK, let's have a fight to the death. You get a knife, I get a gun. Care to change your assessment?

I've been cut by a knife, when a group of guys jumped me outside a football game in high school. Right on my arm. Thank god they didn't have a gun, that's all I can say.

The slippery slope argument just doesn't work here. Almost anything can be a lethal weapon in the right hands. There's no reason to believe that restricting handguns, for example, will lead to a host of other abridgements of rights. I will return to an argument I presented here long ago. I think it has to do with fundamental design. A hammer is designed to hammer nails, but it can be used to cave in someone's skull. A gun is designed to kill a person or an animal, but it can be used to shoot at targets. A knife is (as any outdoors person will tell you) one of the most versatile tools there is. If I were to be lost in the wilderness, I'd like to have a knife and a gun, but if I had to choose, I would without a doubt choose the knife. Let's make no mistake. The invention of gunpowder and guns was a part of the development of warfare, not hunting.

The other question I have is, if you believe citizens have a natural (or constitutional) right to bear arms, why can't I own a nuclear missile? It's not prohibited in the Constitution. Why can't I carry an M-60 around with me, or mount a rocket launcher in the back of my pickup truck? Our right to bear arms is already severely restricted, in ways that most sane people would agree make sense.

I am against capital punishment, because sorry, but one innocent person being executed is too many. I am against general, unrestricted handgun ownership because one innocent kid who blows his head off or kills his friend is too many.

I said that to bring the point forth that knives kill too. If you guys think that getting rid of guns will stop people from getting killed, that is not true, as said before, there will always be a way to get guns, and the black market is easily accessable to criminals, so why not let everyone have a fair chance to carry weapons, and protect themselves. And you said it yourself, if everything can be used to kill, so how will banning guns help at all? And you can't own a nuke or M-60 because their sole purpose is to kill, hand guns, shotguns and rifles have other purposes.

CP

Let's be honest, having a gun makes you feel powerful. Having lots of guns is kind of like self-medicating for irrational fears. Just like beer or pot guns should be regulated not banned.

Yes there is, because any justification for restricting handguns can be used to restrict any other right. Regretably, by prohibiting the most important use of handguns (defense against criminals), a power vacuum is created. Since power abhors a vacuum, two things will happen. Criminals, undeterred by the risk of an armed victim, will become both more numerous and bolder. In response, government will become more "pro-active" (i.e. oppressive) in combatting crime. Squeezed in the middle will be Joe Citizen, who, incidentally, won't be any safer than he was before a handgun ban, and likely will be worse off...



Actually, the original purpose of hammers WAS to cave in skulls, something that is evident to any watcher of The Flintstones. Levity aside, hammers predate nails by a loooonngggg time.



Yup. Which is why, if I ever get a gun, I will get the gun that is, in my humble opinion, most likely to be effective in killing the people that I'm likely going to encounter that need a killin. That means if I'm living in an urban townhouse, I'll be getting either a magazine fed handgun or a sawed off shotgun. If I've retreated to the hills out in Art Bell country, and I'm just awaitin for "them" to come after me, I'll have high powered semi-automatic riflles with scopes. Killing people IS the primary purpose of guns. Constitutionally, even in 1787, hunting was practically a non-issue. From my perspective, the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give me a personal means of protecting my right to life, liberty, and property against any and all comers, including the gubmint, who attempt to unjustly deprive me of those precious commodities.

As noted, common sense is why we don't permit private citizens to own nukes. The risk to the GENERAL public outweighs the social benefits. Some of you make the calculation that the risk of even a single innocent killed with a handgun means that handguns are unacceptable. Well, you're welcome to hold such a notion, as long as you aren't going to attempt to force ME to abide by it as well, because my calculation is that the risk to innocents of death by criminal or death by government is FAR greater.

Two points I'd like to make on the Constitutionality issue: The Federal government is charged with national defense. The Courts have repeatedly held that neither the Federal government nor States nor local governments are specifically responsible for protecting ME from criminals. Which means I'm primarily responsible.

Second, any weapon that the government procures and deploys for the specific purpose of use against its own populace is a weapon to which the populace should have access. Government believes that high powered sniper rifles are legitimate to use against civilians (Ruby Ridge, anyone?), then they are legitimate for civilians to use. Government believes that submachine guns (the famous Elian Gonzalez picture) and "assault" rifles are legitimate? Then they're legitimate for civilians as well. If you can find it in your local, state, or federal civilian law enforcement's arsenal, then you should be able to have it.

C'mon, Pat, be reasonable here. We already have enough trouble with wackjobs getting guns even when they have to wait for a while or go through the trouble of stealing one. Sometimes, due to criminal records and such, these people can't get guns, which prevents a lot of deaths. Now imagine every wacko who wanted a gun to be able to carry one around. That's bad news. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of firearms, but only when they're used for recreational activities or for defense. Having to use one in defense of yourself or others is still a bad situation though. And with wackjobs all running around with guns, there's going to be a lot more attacks,as well as defenses with guns.

Hold on now, I'm not saying there shouldn't be restrictions, I'm not saying go to every prison and make sure all the inmates are packin' hear. I'm saying all people without a record should be able to get guns, they should have to register, but that's pretty much it. And if you're a mugger or anybody, wouldn't you be a little weary robbing someone with a gun?

CP

Ruby ridge is a good example. People forget. Some never knew.

I remember when the Gainesville serial killer came around. My roomate at the time, who was an anti-gun activist, wanted to sleep with my gun under her pillow. Unfortunately, there was a waiting period to buy another gun, so she had to wait until I could get another for myself.

WouldI be a little weary robbing someone with a gun? When would I be robbing them? Would a mugger rob soemone when they're awake, or even in daylight? No. Not unless they're stupid. What makes you think everyone would know how to use their gun well? What happens if the person being mugged has a .357 snubnose, and the mugger has a pump shotgun? With the element of surprise, and the gun that sprays out buckshot, it's going to be hard not to succeed in robbing, as well as killing the person. It's just not as simple as "we all have guns, so nobody will want to rob us."

Well, it's going to be hard sneaking up on someone with a shotgun first of all. It is kinda hard to conceal. The point is, you probably wouldn't take the chance, you don't know whether the person being mugged is a sharpshooter, that's the point.

It isn't as simple as to say, "guns aren't leagal, no one can get them, I'm safe."

CP

False. Obviously you're not very familiar with firearms and only know the popular misconceptions. Shotguns do not "spray" buckshot and it is almost as easy to miss with a shotgun as it is with a handgun. Shot from a shotgun does spread out over distance but at any reasonable range, certainly the ranges likely to be encountered inside a home, the pattern covers only a few inches. Both take a certain amount of skill to use and a competent home defender with a revolver does indeed have a very good chance against an intruder with a shotgun. And btw, a radically better chance than an unarmed home defender would against that same intruder. Nor can we assume a shotgun armed intruder is intent only on burglary and would be harmless if not confronted. Burglars don't normally carry shotguns, but someone intent on murder and mayhem might.

Actually, I'm quite familiar with firearms. Whereas you do need space for the buckshot to spread out, depending on the guage, the grain, size, and the shell's velocity, you don't need a terribly large space for it to spread out. Burglars today don't typically carry shotguns. Why? You'd notice it if someone was trying to conceal a pump shotgun. If all firearms are legal, then who the heck cares if you're walking around with a shotgun? And what if you're asleep when someone with any gun breaks into your house, possibly right into your room? The burglar is expecting you to be there, you're not expecting them to be there. The burglar's gun is loaded and cocked with the safety off. Unless you're stupid, your gun is in your room, possibly under your pillow or next t your bed, not cocked, with the safety on, and possibly not even loaded. Who do you think's going to win this fight?

Going back to the shotgun issue for a minute. The buckshot is going to spread out some no matter what. That's better than having a solid slug. And have you ever fired a shotgun? It spreads out a whole lot quicker than you'd expect. Shotgun pellets are designed to. This is because they move quite slowly, slowerr than the average bb fired out of a bb gun. This is partially why shotguns are used for close range firing. It's not easy to hit a clay pigeon, or for that matter, anything that's over more than 25 yards.

In the interests of diplomacy and of staying on topic, I'll not continue this digression. Instead I'll just refer anyone who's interested to In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob, a recognized expert on personal defense tactics, one who trains the police in them.

Yes, let's steer away from the technical issues with firearms for a little bit .

My point was that it wouldn't be a good thing to legalize firearms for everyone to carry. Right, now the right-to-carry laws that we have in place are good enough. And when you think about it, unless you live in a bad neighborhood, you don't normally need a firearm with you at all times. And as long as you legally buy a gun, you can keep it in your house, which is where you're most likely to need one. Therefore, I'm content with the current laws, and am opposed to the anti-gun legislations that repeatedly attempt to take away our gun-ownership priveleges.

What if you just, want a gun. You're paranoid or whatever, why can't you just get a gun? Why shouldn't that be allowed?

CP

You can get a gun if you just want one. You go to the local gun store,pick out one based on your needs and reasons, (if you don't have any specific ones, just pick one out that you like), and wait for the time period required. That's it. As long as you don't have a criminal or otherwise bad background, you've got yourself a brand-spanking new firearm.