Printable View
http://eatliver.com/img/2009/4936.jpg
Edit: Sorry about that. Here's a link.
I had some doubts about the wisdom of posting this sign, but after some reflection, if the neighbor truly believes that all guns should be banned then he should not be so upset with the sign. He wants all of us to be defenseless too. The only real issue is whether it is smart to advertise the fact you own firearms. What do you think? :cool:
I think they don't approve of hotlinking. :( I wanted to see it.
Just cut & paste the URLQuote:
Originally Posted by Niclo Iste
I read a statistic (can't find the linky) that convicted criminals have cancelled 40% of the plans on robbing/attacking because they believed the victim might be armed...Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Squid
Well, we've never made it a secret that we own and use firearms. Especially if they come around on a weekend that we are going to the range and we're loading the weapons into the van. The neighbors haven't complained, or critisized. But then again, we do live in Oklahoma, where private firearm ownership is a Gawd-given Right! :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by CeeBee
Consequently, the best time to go to the range is Sunday morning, cause most of the good folks are in church and the range is empty. :cool:
Up in this part of Texas, it's really hard to find a household that doesn't have guns. Even when I lived in hippy dippy Austin it was fairly rare to find someone who didn't own firearms. And even before concealed carry was legal, it wasn't all that unusual for folks to carry handguns. When I worked over on the East Side, it was generally believed that, if worst came to worst, some time locked in a cell was better than eternity locked in a box underground.
When I lived in Alexandria, VA and spent a lot of time in D.C., businessmen in the Northeast and Southeast areas of the District were some of the most heavily armed people I've ever encountered; handgun ban or no.
I carry just about every day. I pray that I never have to use it, as know it will end up costing me a years' salary or more in legal fees defending myself against a muggers widow, but as stated above in Slgrieb's post, "time locked in a cell was better than eternity locked in a box underground."
As for the original question, would you rather have a sign saying this is a gun protected home, or this is a gun free home???
"Gun Protected" signs would be OK by me, but I think there's way too much rhetoric about how "they" want to take away our guns. And, maybe that sign is a little over the top.
I'm depressed about the lack of civil, intelligent debate in American politics. I'm sure there actually are plenty of folks who think no one should have guns, but that's a delusion. Hey! There are a lot of people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster!
I'm pretty much toward the Lefty-Pinko end of the political spectrum, but I still can't see how anyone could endorse forfeiting their right to defend themselves and their families. Gun control advocates often go overboard, but some gun rights advocates can be as irrational.
Just because I think an adult should be able to watch porn, doesn't mean I think child pornography should be legal. Just because I think most adults should be able to buy guns doesn't mean that I think that they should be sold at 7-11s.
I would rather be judged by 12, than be carried by 6...
The 2nd Amendment states " ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The word Arms encompasses a whole lot more than just guns, so why aren't people clamoring for the right to carry RPGs, grenades or mount a 50cal to the F150? Why stop at just a small subset of guns, since other types of guns are regulated by law?
In some states, buying a gun is almost as simple as purchasing it from 7-11, where you can walk out in 15 minutes with a brand new gun. While in others you can wait 3 months for the privilege to purchase one. Even Walmart sells ammo in their stores in parts of the country.
While people state that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" guns make it that much easier. Here's a graph to show how guns are the preferred method to kill people. The blue and green lines are both for guns, it is just that one line is just handguns, and the green line is for other guns.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...weapon.svg.png
It just seems that an item whose sole use is to kill other living things should be more regulated whether for defense or aggression.
Fascinating chart, Kymera. Where did you find it? If it were more current, it would show a continued decline in gun crime.
I suggest you look up Kennesaw, Georgia, a city with mandatory gun ownership laws. Violent crime, break ins, etc. are way below the national average, and declined sharply after the enactment of their gun ownership requirements. In fact, it was just selected as one of the Top 10 cities for families.
There are tons of related statistics, disproving the old myths that increased gun ownership is directly related to increased violence, or murder, etc. I'm at work and can't dredge it all up at the moment, but you might give it a shot and see for yourself.
I did not intend to imply that gun ownership results in increased violence, or murder, etc. My only point is that guns are made to kill things. Whether you use it for defense or aggression that's what a gun does, that is what it is made to do. While gun homicides have fallen (all homicides by weapon type also fell) guns are still far and away the greatest killer of other life. As such, they should be regulated.
I also wish the graph data was more current, though 5-6 years old is still on the cusp of usability, and it can be found on this page.
A single town where mandatory gun ownership has resulted in lower that average rates for violent crime is interesting. However, on January 12, 2010, Jesse James Warren, in Kennesaw, Ga., fired multiple rounds from two handguns, killing two people, and critically wounded three others. He is currently awaiting trial. I am honestly surprised that in a place with mandatory gun ownership, that he lived long enough to be taken into custody, and without first having to be taken to the hospital.
I point you to this chart, to see that the US ranks above countries that most would consider dangerous. Also, notice where the US falls in relation to other countries that are considered our peers. I believe the US has the most liberal gun policy amongst our peers.
I'm still curious about my the question in my first post: why is no one arguing that the Constitution states that people have the right to bear Arms. Arms include a whole gamut of weaponry, not just guns. Why isn't anyone complaining that the government took away the right of all citizens to wield grenades, shoulder launched rockets, chain fed machine guns or mortars? What is the problem with those weapons as opposed to guns?
Actually, there are plenty of folk opposed to any kind of weapons control. Knowing a few of them well is one reason I favor gun control. And, of course, that's the rub. I'm no more if favor of banning ownership of weapons than I am of removing all restrictions; the debate is about what constitutes reasonable limits.
So, Kymera, you raise lots of interesting questions, but what's your position on the issue?
:flames: Bwa ha ha! I'm back in!
Kymera, I speak from the vantage point of having been born and raised in country with severe gun control: Venezuela. The citizens were unable to fight crime, or oppose totalitarian governments, and were basically victims. The murder rate in Caracas, and other cities, is very high, even without guns, because people will find a weapon. In the heat of the moment, a knife, or even a sharp pencil, is just as deadly and convenient.
My relatives in Venezuela, live in fear for their lives and will not venture out after dark, as the streets are owned by the criminal element, who has nothing to fear from the citizenry, or the under-trained, ill-equipped and mostly uneducated police forces. In fact, one almost is more afraid of the cops than the criminals.
When I was growing up, we were protected, as my father had a highly illegal .38 cal. automatic pistol he smuggled in from the USA, which was our only line of defense against criminals. He never had to use it, but we felt safer having it as an option.
Yes, handguns are designed to kill people. Responsible gun owners are acutely aware of this. I have taken all of my boys to the range and taught them proper gun safety. My wife, two of the boys and myself all own and keep at least one firearm, and are prepared to use them in our defense. My wife, all 4'10'' of her, is the most adamant proponent of firearm ownership of all of us, having been the victim of violence throughout her life and refuses to be a victim any more. :thumbs:
Interestingly enough, the one boy who doesn't own a firearm is currently in the Army. He is awaiting deployment to Korea, but is bucking for Iran or Afghanistan. I guess he wants to be a combat nerd, as he is in Communications and is the one kid who took to hardware and computer modding/construction. Go figure. :rolleyes:
Machineguns, fully automatic weapons, etc. are not beyond private ownership, actually. You just need to have the money for the licenses. I know a feller with a .50 cal. machinegun, he just needs to get a license for each and every round (bullet), which ain't cheap. But, as the owner of a strip club, he can afford it. And, the various fully automatic weapons he also owns. Explosive munitions are more restricted, I would assume, but am not familiar with that.
Don't you hate it when someone sits down next to you at the bar, flirts a bit, then leaves without even saying goodbye?
I can understand being a victim. I know some victims and I've been a victim. Increasing the number of guns does not seem to be the way to combat the threat of violence.
Sure, just about anything can be a deadly weapon if it is used with that intent. I could also use a grenade as a paperweight. Is it made for that purpose? Most people would say no, but it works just as well. Guns make killing easy. How easy? So easy a child could do it.
On machine guns, I'm pretty sure that there is a ban on sales of automatic weapons to civilians for a long time. A little research later... 1986, Reagan enacted a federal ban on automatic weapon sales to civilians. An entire class of weapon was rendered inaccessible to the common citizen, and only weapons manufactured before that date and are considered transferable can be sold and require the approval of the federal government. So machine guns are illegal to buy except for models before 1986.
Anyway, I applaud you for actually being proactive about gun safety. You are the exception. Most people don't get oil changes for their cars, or even know how to use most of the features therein. i wonder how many people had parents that wouldn't set the VCR clock so it just flashed 12:00 until it became obsolete. My point is that while you have instilled the tragic responsibility that accompanies gun ownership to your family, the majority of people have not. These are the people who are on TV, teary eyed because they shot a family member who went downstairs at night to get a drink.
I mentioned that I was a victim of violence earlier, what I did to make myself feel safe again is that I took self-defense classes and forced myself to be more aware of my surroundings. If I don't feel safe, i go another way. Will it save me 100% of the time? No, but it has worked so far. Would I feel safer with a gun? No. Most of the time you can't walk with a gun anyway, and if you're surprised you can't get to it, and have probably armed your assailant. In situations where a gun would be useful, you can't carry it and a gun in your closet is of little use to you when you're at the bank.
I guess my point is that for all the people who are worried about the ability to purchase and carry weapons the places and opportunities for their legal use make it virtually pointless to own one. The flip side would be to allow people to carry a weapon anywhere that receives federal funds, so the states can still restrict gun proliferation somewhat. I'm not so sure that would go over well either.
I was asked my person view and here it is.
I feel that guns are inherently dangerous, even when used responsibly, and in the care of someone responsible. I point you to the video of the guy giving a gun safety lecture who accidentally shot himself in the leg. I'm sure you've seen it.
I feel that guns make it easy and impersonal to kill someone.
I feel guns are the only thing available to the general populace whose only function is to destroy life when used properly.
I feel that people would be safer if they increased the security around their house, instead of leaving the door open and buying a gun.
I also feel that the knowledge that the populace is unarmed is dangerous.
I feel that having the option to purchase a gun guarantees a free populace.
I feel a gun should never leave the house unless someone is hunting for food, not"sport", fighting an illegal occupation of our country or going for training/practice.
This is a non-exhaustive list. Guns are a complex issue and requires a complex answer. People who say that they are for or against guns have not expended the mental energy to have a proper discussion about it.
My argument is, let me have my guns. I'd rather an equal playing field when the criminal has a gun. There is a saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" and there is a lot of good reason to heed such a saying. Furthermore prohibiting gun ownership only applies to law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal cares that it's illegal to own the gun? Chances are he never intended on registering it in the first place.
One could argue statistics in one degree or another, if we want to go with the left and say "Guns help crimes happen" they are right, to a degree. Guns may make it easier but crimes are committed because the individual wanted to. Not because the gun said to do it. We could also argue for the right and say "Guns deter crimes". That to a degree is also correct. However if your criminal is insane, drugged up, or plain devoted to committing his crime the gun does little to decrease their desire to commit the crime. I prefer my philosophy of 12 guage buckshot being able to stop anyone in their tracks. Mind you if someone is coming at me with any intent of physical harm I'll do what I to take them down with me, even if they have a gun.
A gun is as safe (or unsafe) as the person handling it. That guy was handling a chambered Glock, the main safety feature of a Glock is your brain. I have one. I only chamber the round when I want to shoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
As opposed to using your bare hands? Or a baseball bat? Or a knife?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
Counter-example: swords. But you know the saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
A security system can do so much. A determined individual can cut the wires before entering a house. Even with a working security system... when seconds count police are only minutes away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
That highly depends on where you are going. I feel safer with my gun if I'm walking my dog at night (even if I know my 90lbs lab would probably give his life to protect me).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
Okay, i see we're going to use the old I'm-only-responding-to-specific-quotes-method, instead of putting forth a cohesive argument.
Exactly. I may not know you personally, but I'm fairly certain you have not gotten 100% on every test you've taken. The brain is an imperfect object, you can't remember everything you've ever done, nor can you think as clearly under the stress of certain circumstances. Further, I was not talking in specifics, my point is the broader gun issue. You may be competent to handle a gun, but even competent people make mistakes. You may, in fact, worry about someone else having a gun because you know them to be generally irresponsible and careless. If you do worry about those people you may in fact be a closet supporter of gun control.Quote:
A gun is as safe (or unsafe) as the person handling it. That guy was handling a chambered Glock, the main safety feature of a Glock is your brain. I have one. I only chamber the round when I want to shoot.
Yes. When you have to get close, exert a significant amount of energy and experience something personally it is quite different. Run over a squirrel with your car, then crush one in your hand. In both situations, the end result is the same, but the the personal feeling of it is different. you may not even be able to kill the squirrel in your hand, or even with a bat because it is much more personal than using a car to do it.Quote:
As opposed to using your bare hands? Or a baseball bat? Or a knife?
The point is deterrence right? An alarm system is probably more of a deterrent than a gun. You advertise that the home is alarmed, and a burglar will probably seek another easier target. If the person is determined enough to cut the wires, if they even can, most security systems have a cell backup option (mine does), chances are they're prepared for your gun too.Quote:
A security system can do so much. A determined individual can cut the wires before entering a house. Even with a working security system... when seconds count police are only minutes away.
Again, this is a personal preference, that has little bearing on the actual issue. I was asked my personal feelings and I provided them. You refer to only one of many examples I listed. If you feel safer walking your dog, who you admit would attempt to maul anyone that appeared to threaten you, with a gun, through a neighborhood that you chose to live in, I would wonder why anyone would need to have two ways to kill or maim someone while out for a stroll on their own street?Quote:
That highly depends on where you are going. I feel safer with my gun if I'm walking my dog at night (even if I know my 90lbs lab would probably give his life to protect me).
Where did the criminal get the gun from? Chances are he didn't make it himself. The gun was made legally, and probably acquired legally by someone who then sold it to the criminal for an inflated price. There are few illegal guns in this country, but plenty of ways to get one illegally. If I wanted a gun, but I didn't feel like waiting to get a license through the proper channels, I could get one by having a friend in another state with almost criminally negligent gun laws buy it for me, and ship it to my house. Voila! Instant illegal gun.Quote:
My argument is, let me have my guns. I'd rather an equal playing field when the criminal has a gun. There is a saying "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" and there is a lot of good reason to heed such a saying. Furthermore prohibiting gun ownership only applies to law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal cares that it's illegal to own the gun? Chances are he never intended on registering it in the first place.
Criminals don't care if the gun is illegal, but you care about getting shot. Even if you carry your gun on you, and you're surprised by a gun wielding criminal, your gun doesn't leap into your hand cocked and ready to fire. Even if you're holding your gun in you hand, with a round chambered, and your hand is at your side, the criminal's gun is already pointed at you. In either situation, it would probably be better that you didn't have a gun since if you twitch the wrong way you're the one who would likely be shot. Further, shooting someone in the back as they run away with your wallet is assault or murder, not self-defense.
I agree, statistics are a difficult animal, however, they tell a story: Guns make it easy to kill people, and they kill more people than any other weapon. The deterrence is a non-issue unless you advertise that you are carrying a gun, or have one easily accessible in your house. The practical issue is that individually, I am sure there are millions of great, responsible gun owners, but there are also millions of irresponsible people who probably should not have them. Look at the process we have to go through for our cars: we have to register them, insure them, have them inspected at some interval to show that we are operating a vehicle the state considers safe and even reregister them to show that they still belong to us. When we sell the car, the person we sell it to has to register it to show that they are accepting ownership of the vehicle. I'm not a gun owner, but I'm fairly certain there is no such procedure for guns. The people who purchase them do not have to show any level of proficiency, demonstrate that they are maintaining it, or even register it every couple of years. This lends itself to the illegal gun scenario I showed above. The lack of any sort of periodic registration lends itself to the very illegal gun that shows up in your hypothetical. there could even be a DHR (Department of handguns and rifles) where are of this takes place. An entire building filled with people carrying all sorts of guns should be perfectly safe. After all, no one would want to try anything since everyone is armed.Quote:
One could argue statistics in one degree or another, if we want to go with the left and say "Guns help crimes happen" they are right, to a degree. Guns may make it easier but crimes are committed because the individual wanted to. Not because the gun said to do it. We could also argue for the right and say "Guns deter crimes". That to a degree is also correct. However if your criminal is insane, drugged up, or plain devoted to committing his crime the gun does little to decrease their desire to commit the crime. I prefer my philosophy of 12 guage buckshot being able to stop anyone in their tracks. Mind you if someone is coming at me with any intent of physical harm I'll do what I to take them down with me, even if they have a gun.
Because I can!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
I beg to differ. Talking from personal experience here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
However in a different scenario with knife-yielding assailants a gun can quickly turn the tables in your favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
That may depend on the state, but where I live you need to complete a safety course and pass a test before being issued a permit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
Some 300,000 guns are stolen each year from private citizens alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymera
Far more people are being killed with those "registered and inspected vehicles" than with guns each year.
This is all very interesting.
In Canada we have very restrictive gun control laws. They are a PITA for people who live in rural areas, but they really have no impact on the majority of urban dwellers, except collectors and hobbiests. Most urban people just don't care.
We have always had severe restrictions on handguns. The restrictions on rifles and shotguns are relatively new.
I have owned and used rifles, shotguns, and pistols. I own none now because I have no need for them and there is nowhere I can use them now anyway, at least not easily. I do not need them for self defense. I no longer go hunting, not because I have any objection to the activity, but because it is no longer practical.
When I lived in a rural area, deer, moose, and game birds added to the winter larder, and hunting was cost effective. I could buy Kobe beef more cheaply per pound than what game would cost me now.
My family still have a variety of firearms, all registered, all with trigger locks, all locked in firearms safes, ammunition locked up separately.
On my mother's side of the family, there is a history of police service. My grandfather was a career officer. He was a crack marksman with rifles and pistols. He never shot anyone. He never even drew his service revolver in the line of duty, although he once took it off and laid it down to gain the trust of someone holed up in a hotel room with several rifles. He successfully talked the guy out. Brain and diplomacy first. Gun last.
The RCMP small arms trainer, who instructed one of my cousins who became a Sheriff, told the class that the survival rate for victims of violent crime who are armed is generally lower than for those who are not armed. He said he and almost every experienced criminal can tell if someone is packing a pistol, unless it is something like a little Barretta 25 Cal. The protocol for dealing with potential victims who are armed is to shoot first and ask for the money later. He said that as a peace keeper, if you rely on your gun rather than your wits, you will end up a dead peace keeper.
In Vancouver, we have a handgun problem. It is because, Americans have relatively few restrictions on guns and because they/you seem to have an insatiable appetite for BC-grown, high-yield bud. And we live right across the street from you. You pay big bucks for BC bud. You get some of your money back with handgun sales. We have Sikh young men, pimped up like Gangsta rappers. We have Chinese, Vietnamese, Latin American, etc. young men pimped up like Gangsta rappers. We have white young men pimped up like Gangsta rappers. Gangs sometimes fall along ethic lines. Sometimes they are multiracial. All the young men want Glocks. So far they mostly just shoot each other. Young man shot up, burned to crisp, in an expensive car abandoned in a field. Typical. A week or two later there is a revenge killing. Young man in an expensive car killed in a hail of bullets at a stop light. And on it goes. There are few instances of innocent bystanders getting killed. There are a fair number of instances of the Sikh dudes not being able to read house numbers and doing drive by shootings on the wrong houses - literacy doesn't seem to be required for gun operation.
I liked guns as objects of craftsmanship, particularly well-made ones. And I liked shooting them. But I don't miss them much at all. If I were to move back to a rural area, I would probably apply for a permit for rifles and shotguns. I don't really care about handguns.
____________________________________________
http://forums.windrivers.com/images/.../2010/07/1.jpg
It is my pure and virtuous heart that
gives me the strength of ten!
I have read all the arguments both for and against gun ownership, but I cannot help but feel that gun ownership is and should always be an inalienable right. I carry a pistol almost everyday, and not once have I had an urge to pull it out and go on a rampage. I avoid fights, and even the possibility of getting into a fight while carrying, as if arrested, I probably would never see my weapon again. I applaud the people who say that they won't have anything to do with guns, but at the same time I say get the HELL out of my life, I choose to be armed and safe. I don't want anyone to be able to make decisions for me, whether it be what car I drive, which church I attend, or if I can or cannot have guns. As pointed out in a previous post, more people are killed by automobiles, yet no one wants to ban them. As Charlton Heston said " From my cold, dead hands! "
Guts, you have nailed the crux of the biscuit, summarized succintly. :thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Guts3d
Everyone opposed to private gun ownership is entitled to their opinion and can refuse to own guns, as is their right, but it should be a matter of choice, as clearly stated by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. :)
A criminal can buy a knife at nearly any store, no I.D. needed, and use it as either a cooking tool, ( as is intended ) or use it as a weapon. The difference is THE USER. They choose to mis-use the tool, so blame should lie with the defective person who commits a crime. Otherwise, we should ban all knives, and since cars are used to kill people, let's ban those. While we are at it, lets ban cancer, blunt objects, carbon monoxide, falls from great heights, ( gravity ) and anything else that might be used as a weapon. One reason Japan didn't invade the U.S. in World War 2 because so many citizens were armed. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”