I suppose it's possible.
The odds of deterring MUST be greater with obvious defences, instead of hidden offenses. That only makes sense. If the law abiding citizen doesn't want to put up bars and security doors, then let them take responsibility for thier safty in another way, such as trying to push gun control legislation.
I'm not a man of weak morals. My moral code strictly forbids state execution (or any execution). If you want my thoughts on THAT subject, feel free to join me int he "why people hate texans" thread. I just keep inviting you into threads. Hehe.
Are you willing, then, to say that the only true defensive function of a gun is that it is in fact offensive? If not, then I'll have to continue to be obtuse about it. If you admit it, I'll be acute and move on. Yes, many things can be used as weapons, but their primary function is not as a weapon. More meat clevers are used on meat than on people. Fertelizer is more often used for crops or flaming bags on porches. A baseball bat is more often used for baseball. Guns are intended to put holes in people or animals, to the end of harming or killing. It's function is waht sets it apart from the above items.
Have you ever been tased or mased? They are really, really uncomfortable. Even guns with rubber bullits are better than the real thing.
Then we are stuck in a situation of escelation with the criminals. If neither the government nor the manufacturers can stop what's going, on then what cahnce do we have? We get a handgun, they get an automatic rifel. We get bulletproof vests, they get armor peircing rounds....etc. This is not a path to peace. This is not a path to a solutuion.
As we've stated, these weapons - knife bat, axe - are clearly less dangerous than guns. It's not a matter of having nothing to fear, but of having much less to fear.
Okay, time to argue semantics....
offence: is the action of attacking or engaging an opposing team or antagonist.
That's what you're doing. You're engaging a criminal with your gun. It's the very definition of offence.
Handguns are designed to protect you from a criminal? I'll need proof on this one.
They feel that no one in their city should have a gun legally, and voted as such.

Interesting discussion.

I was listening to a radio interview about the research behind what makes people be secure and what makes people feel secure. Here's what the guy was saying:

Proliferation of guns and security messures actually increases the sense of being insecure. From a psychological standpoint, it focuses our attention on our feelings of insecurity and heightens our awareness of gaps in our security, which, if you think of it, are ubiquidous and can never be completely filled.

I'd say your best protection is in shifting attitudes toward oneself and others. Let's put it this way: if you're a good person, looking out for others, making meanignful,respectful relationships all around you, you are more secure, because you are surrounding yourself with the same kind of people. Now, if we start to do that on a national level, what do you think will happen?

I'm not aware of a specific one at this time. I've 'heard' that the number of times a gun was used to stop a crime can't be counted because over half of them are unreported, or something to that effect.

It's tough at first? you're asking law abiding people to go defenseless as you whittle away gun wielding criminals. how many deaths is an acceptable number before you declare the law beneficial or useless? also, how many of them have to become victims of brutalization by armed criminals before you declare the law useless or beneficial?

which only disarms them and not the criminal.

For any defensive weapon to be effective it has to be used offensively. That is not to say that all guns are offensive by nature just as swords, knives, clubs, or even tasers are offensive by nature. They are designed to stop a threat.

yet you suggest people to not use guns, but use non weapon things like baseball bats for purposes they are not intended for.....to defend themselves?

But it beats being completely defenseless. what you're suggesting is for us to surrender to the criminal element. passive resistance only works to those that have an image to maintain. what does a criminal care about their image?

why should I give the criminal less reason to fear? I want him to be so damn afraid that he decides not to criminalize me.

If you engage in offense, YOU are the antagonist. If I defend myself, i'm the protagonist.

I gave you one up above.

and I see every criminal rushing to turn in their guns the first week. /sarcasm

Not true. Even D.C. saw a decrease in illegal guns at first. The crime went up, but the amount of guns moving into the city is still less than before the ban.
Then we are in agreement that the term 'defensive weapon' is an oxymoron, or a contradiction in terms. S bulletproof vest is an excelent example of a defensive tool. A gun is an offensive weapon (which is a term that I can now admit is reduntant).
Yes.
Ghandi didn't have an image to maintain, and neither did I. This is less about image, and more about peaceful philosophy being applicable to reality (the ultimate test of a philosophy).
Then dress up like a werwolf. Guns aren't just to scare, they are to harm. If you kill someone who is breaking into your house, you are guilty of murdere, whether it is in self defence or not. This is where fact fades and philosophy comes in. This is on par with my philosophy about the death penalty. Only God has the right to tkae life, and anyone else taking life is disrespectful to life. Of course, this is my philosophy, not yours. I'm just trying to explain where my logic/hilosophy is coming from.
What if someone breaks in unarmed and you point the gun and they start to leave and you shoot them?
You misunderstand my question. When guns are deisnged, by gun designers, is their one and only concern to make the gun able to defend you from a criminal? Or do they also make it for military or police to kill people, or maybe to hunt. I suspect, judging by the availability of illegal arms, that the manufacturers don't care how their guns are used.
Well if they don't then they are breaking the law. You can't just not pass a lwa because people will break it. That's absurd.

you prove my point saying that making legal handgun ownership does not reduce crime, but in fact crime INCREASES!!! Why on earth do you want to subject law abiding people to be victims?

Don't infer that. Thats like Bush calling it 'healthy forests' or 'clean air act'. You know thats not what I said just like I know thats not what you said.

why? a bat or knife can be turned against you alot easier than a gun. with a gun, you can stop the intruder or aggressor with one shot. do you want criminals to have a better chance to win?

I misstated myself. The 'image' I was referring to would be the aggressor, not the pacifist.

no its not.

"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22: 2-3.)

if they turn to run out the door or window when they see my gun, i'll try not to shoot but if they aren't fast enough, then see above.

why does a law enforcement officer wear a sidearm? Is it to kill a criminal? or is it to defend themselves?

whats equally absurd is passing a law that criminals have no intention of following since the gun they already have is most likely illegal anyway and disarming the public in the process. The government does not have the authority to disarm the public en masse and most especially the government does not have the authority to force the people to not defend themselves. The people have the inherent and inalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.

You wanting it to equal murder does not make it so. The law is quite clear on this.

I think your proving my point that you have a lot of fear and this is about fear.

As I said, everyone is not out to kill everyone else. You have to set aside your fear and see that this is true. The vast majority of people are good and wanting to help not hurt, like you. It your fear, not them, that is the issue.

psychobabble mumbo jumbo. I'm not afraid of other law abiding citizens. I simply want to defend myself and my family from criminals.

thats not answering my questions anyway. are you telling the people that they just need to face the risk that they will be a defenseless victim, for a short time only, while we take care of criminals getting guns?

D.C. made a ton of mistakes. They assumed that they could just say no more guns and leave it at that. SF is not D.C. They see the track record of gun bans, and will have to build on what cities have done before. It is possible to learn from history.
Let's not be unplesant. I'm not comfortable being equated with Bush, at all. Guns aren't defensive. It's that simple.
But as you said it's easier to defend against a knife or bat.
A criminla cares about the element of fear (didn't you watch Batman Begins?). If you take an element of their tool of terror, they are less functional as a criminal because of it.
Murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (traditionally termed "malice aforethought") (see attempted murder where the mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") requirement is limited). The only arguable point in there is 'without lawful excuse'. In some places you are legally allowed to shoot someone in your house. In San Francisco, you are not. I should have been mroe specific in that I meant in San Francisco.
That's OT, I'm all about the NT. I was just trying to tell you where I was coming from, not trying to make an argument about philosophy.
In Texas, that's fine. In San Francisco, it's not.
They have a sidearm to defend themselves by shooting or shooting at criminals. I'd say at best it's both, and at worst it's the former.
This isn't the government disarming the populace. This is the populace disarming the populace. The government didn't pass this behind closed doors to the detriment of Constitutional rights, the people came out and voted to remove as many guns as possible from their community. We have the right, in addition to the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness, to VOTE. This was the dicision of the people. What you are talking about is actually very much authoritarian. The populace doesn't want guns to be legal, but you do.

Well, as we covered in the other thread from whence you came, you almost certianally won't be victimized by crime, gun or not. Your fear of the criminal element does not acutarly represent the statistics that I threw at you. There is nothing wrogn with being afraid, btw. I'm sure this was not intended as an attack on your courage. It's a simple fact of life. Everyone is afraid of something. I'm afraid of stuff. You're afraid of stuff. We're all afraid of stuff.
Why is this so unreasonable?

will, its obvious that because of what happened to your friend, that you've made up your mind and are deadset on removing guns from the face of the earth. Thats fine for you, but what I recommend you do is once you're in office immediately file a resolution to repeal the second amendment. Get the required amount of elected representatives and states to sign off on it. Once you've accomplished that, then you'll need to help form a federal task force large enough to start scouring the nation so you can start confiscating guns. On that note, I want to leave you with the following facts:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-
millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany did establish gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest,
were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million
dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million
"educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians
were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded
up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . . .338

338 Most of the genocide statistics were reported “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,
Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001

Senator Diane Feinstein, speaking on "60-Minutes" said "if I
thought I could get the votes, I'd have taken them all."

Why does Senator Feinstein carry a concealed weapon?


SERIOUS QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
• If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good
enough to use for protection?
• Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and I?
• If you and your children were face to face with a male attacker twice your size, what
would you do – If you weren't armed? If you were armed?
• If guns are "too dangerous" to be in our society, how come our leaders want to be the
only ones who have them? Do you trust our leaders implicitly to protect you at all
times?
• Which is better – more gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in our
society, or not sitting by helplessly watching as an intruder repeatedly rapes your 13-
year-old daughter?
• If we ever completely ban guns, do you think there will be no more armed criminals
in America?
• With so many gun laws already on the books, how come "gun crimes" still exist?

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS
Number of firearms in America: 228,000,000339
Number of firearm owning households: At least 50,600,000340
Projected firearm owning households in America: 60-85 million
Number of guns used in crimes: 450,000341
Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%
Violent crimes committed daily by paroled prisoners:
Murders: 14
Rapes: 48
Robberies: 578

I want to understand where you draw a line if any,

Do you carry a gun at your dinner table?
Do you carry a gun at work?
Do you carry a gun when at a childrens school?
Do you carry a gun on a bus?
Do you carry a gun when you go to the washroom?

I am trying to understand what motivates you to carry a gun. Assuming the benefits and threats you state, I assume all the above are places you carry a gun.

Is that true or are there places you feel safe from threat?

I'm not just a flower farting, anti gun liberal, though. I do recognise the imporatnce of what todays version of a militia means. The government cannot be allowed to have more power than the people. The Second Amendment is of pivital importance because we are seeing Bush abuse his powers right now. What the forefathers saw as a well armed milita, I see as a citizens union of sorts. We need an invisible 4th power in checks and balances: ourselves. Going back to guns for a moment (wlel for the rest of the thread, probably), I do not want to make guns illegal. I'd like to see people responsible enough to use them get them, and those who are not to be kept from getting them. This isn't just a national issue, in fact. I suspect that international law would benifit from multilateral decisions about the legality of weapons in general. Supplying arms and such should be better regulated than it is. Gun regisration would benifit all. Make the list public (yes, I am insane). BUT make sure that everyone who checks the list is also monitored. If someone looks at a person not having a gun on the list, and then that person is robbed, we'll have a very, very likely suspect. Then that person is prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law, and it is widely published that 'the system works'. This will put a quick end to people trying to abuse the list. Mind you, I am working this out as I write it, but at least I'm thinking about it instread of just thinking about escelation. I want to do everything in my power to keep guns from bad people. In that, I suspect that we are on the same side.
I know the stats and the history. I also know that this is a desicision for the people of SF to make for themselves, and I defend their right to make such a decision. I'm not stupid. I know that there is little if any prescedent for success in the gun ban, but I do know that it's possible.
That same question was once asked about nuclear weapons. No one came up with an answer beyond MAD.
They're hypocrites, but we alreay knew that.
I'd break him in two if he ever even thought about putting my daughter in any kind of harm. Even if the guy is an excelent fighter, I know can give my daughter enough time to run and hide.
Guns are too dangerous in general. No one should have them. Of course that's absurd asn they've already been invented. All we can do now is try to limit the destructive capabilities of guns, such as being available to criminals.
An intruder really would have a great deal of trouble getting into my house, so the question is moot. I'll play along anyway. No one will rape my daughter because I won't let them. I don't need a gun, and neither should anyone else.
There will be criminals, but they will be a hell of a lot less dangerous.
They are lax in some cases and practically non-existant in others. They are inneffective because of efforts by organizations like the NRA to prevent things like gun registration (which has been brought before the House more than a few times).

If I had my way, there would be no restriction on where to carry at all.

Yes
work policy does not allow it
Texas law does not allow it
Dont ride the bus
just not in the shower.

Do any of you gun control people watch the news? gun violence can, and does, erupt anywhere at any time. The courthouse shooting in Tyler Texas last year woke alot of people up. The concealed license applications number jumped 100% after that.

Once again, its not about being fearful everywhere one goes, its about being prepared to defend yourself, if necessary.

The people of S.F. do not have the right, nor the authority, to rewrite the constitution nor repeal the 2nd amendment. If that were the case, then locales around the nation could void the other 9 if they chose to do so.

has anyone ever told you the definition of insanity?

and so far thats been a pretty good deterrent.

But not everyone else can and that seems to be the point you're not willing to acknowledge.

and you take away the availability to criminals by making them illegal for all?

I hope and pray that nothing ever does happen to your daughter, but even criminals get lucky. Are you willing to bet her life on it?

All studies so far have proven differently.

They are lax in some cases and practically non-existant in others. They are inneffective because of efforts by organizations like the NRA to prevent things like gun registration (which has been brought before the House more than a few times).[/QUOTE]

Fact: During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped
more than 44 percent.132
Fact: Of the 3,353 prohibited individuals that obtained firearms, the Clinton administration only
investigated 110 - or 3.3% of these individuals.133
Fact: Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check,
only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71%
of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.134 None of these crimes were
prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.135Fact: During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped
more than 44 percent.132
Fact: Of the 3,353 prohibited individuals that obtained firearms, the Clinton administration only
investigated 110 - or 3.3% of these individuals.133
Fact: Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check,
only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71%
of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.134 None of these crimes were
prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.135
Fact: In 1998, the government prosecuted just eight children for gun law violations.136 In that
same year, there were:
• 8 prosecutions for juvenile handgun possession.
• 6 prosecutions for handgun transfer to juveniles.
• 1 prosecution for Brady Law violations.
Fact: 1/2 of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.138
Fact: The average sentence for a federal firearms violation dropped from 57 months to 46
months from 1996 to 1998.139
Fact: 18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders.140 None of these criminals are
allowed by law to purchase a handgun, and the Federal government under Clinton rarely
enforced this law.
Fact: Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia prosecutes felons caught with guns using Federal laws
that require mandatory imprisonment. The first year result was a 33% drop in homicides for the
Richmond Metro area in a year where the national murder rate was climbing.141 This shows that
enforcement works. And according to Andrew McBride of the Richmond Justice Department
Office, these cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."

132 - Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University covering 1992 through 1998
133 -General Accounting Office (GAO) 2000 audit of the National Instant Check System between 11/30/98 and
11/30/99.
134 - Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4,
2000
135 - U.S. Justice Department statistics, 1999
136 - Ibid.
137 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4,
2000
138 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS, February, 2000
139 Ibid.
140 United States Treasury and Justice Department Report, 1999
141 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1999

I'm completely flabbergasted that anyone who says they value life so much would actually demand that any percentage of people allow themselves to be sacrificed for such an expirement. :eek:

See, this is where people make mistakes. I have done with 99% of all gun debates because I have come to realize that hopolophobes are not going to be persuaded. They are so convinced that they are correct that even when their "facts" ( like the hyperinflated US gun-death bodycount ) are shown to be misrepresented, manipulated, or just plain LIES, they persist in using them. They are convinced that we ( gunowners ) ARE the rediculous propaganda charicatures they like to paint. Logic, statistics, example of history...none of this will sway 99% of these people, so I have largely given up trying.

Instead, I refer them to this:

If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. If I am left unmolested, you will never know I am a gunowner, you will probably not even be aware of my existance. However, know this;
I believe that my Rights are mine simply by virtue of being Human. No Government, no agency, and certainly no hopolophobic do-gooder is going to take them away from me, short of killing me or locking me up. I will resist, by any means needed, warranted, or possible, such incursions. I do not care if 51%, 75%, or 99.9% of the world thinks I'm crazy or selfish or delusional or scared. MY Rights are not subject to THEIR review or modification. The practical upshot is this:

If you come for my guns, my body, or my property, I will shoot you. I will shoot anyone you send in your place. End of story. Period. Might get me killed, might not. One way or another, any survivors will damn sure think twice before trying it on the next guy, because even if I never even wing 'em, they'll find my corpse equipped with enough foot-pounds of muzzle energy to let 'em know I meant it. 7.62x51mm Ball has a way of doing that. My FAL isn't for deer hunting, or target-shooting, or even criminal-shooting. It has only one purpose. Shooting tyrants and their agents. Yes, strictly speaking, it is a single-purpose weapon, and that single purpose is killing people. Sometimes, in the defense of Life and Liberty, people need to be killed.

And here's the REALLY fun part...if even 1% of the 80,000,000+ -known- gunowners in this country thinks this way...you're going to have to kill or imprison upwards of 800,000 people. That's getting into the lower tier of Genocide. If the figure is 10% ( which is still low, IMO ) you're looking at 8,000,000 people dead or jailed. Beats Pol Pot, Saddam, and almost beats Hitler. Do you REALLY want to wade through that much blood?? We won't strike first, but we will strike back. Hard. Killing us will not be easy, or quick; you think IRAQ is trouble? Try getting a handle on an EIGHT MILLION-person insurgency. Are you people REALLY willing to go to lengths like that, just to satisfy your own prejudices?

Think about it.

Again you appear to be making my point is that you want a gun based on fear, and from your own example it appears from being shot as you mention 'gun' violence can occur at any time.

If you didn't have the fear you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself.

People are already dieing because of the experiment of letting everyone have guns so lets try another experiment that has proven to work in other countries with far fewer deaths due to crime and gun shots.

You are afraid when eating dinner you are going to be facing a criminal. A society that has that, shows there is something terribly wrong.

You should have the right to feel safe where ever you go, not just full of fear and feel you can handle it. There is a big difference.

I know I can't change what you feel but at least realise my goal would be to make you happier and not dead.

More guns just doesn't make any sense if happiness is the goal.
More guns makes a lot of sense if death is the goal as that is what a handgun is designed for - to kill people.

You mean that they are rewriting your interpretation of the Second Amendment. If it were so cut and dry, then the vote never would have occoured.
Well I am getting my masters in psyc, so I'd probably know. Prescedent provides for the educated guess that this could fail, but not a certianty.
And how many times have we been told that terrorists, or Iran, are a nuclear threat? How many times did school children from the 50s through the 80s have to practice nuclear blast tests in school? How many nuclear missles does Israel have? MAD is a eprfect acronym, in that it represents the madness in the ultimate form of escilation.
You're taking the scenereo farther than it needs to go. SECURITY DOORS, BARS ON WINDOWS. These are true deterrents from crime, and more specifically home invasion. No one will rape my daughter because they can't get to her without serious welding tools, and a lot of time and effort.
If we lived in a hypothetical world in which I had the power to do something of that magnitude with a 100% success rate, then yes, I'd take every weapon and destroy them. You would not have a gun, nor would anyone.
I seeimgly do every day. It's the same as the meteor insurance I talked about in the last thread. I see the odds of something like that happening as so minute that it would be ludicris for me to take steps to prevent such an occourance. I don't have volcano insurance, and I don't have a gun.
So if criminals had no guns, then they would somehow be MORE dangerous?

Like I said, the system is broken, or at least limping towards an early death. Instead of arming ourselves, we should concentrate on fixing the preventitive and punitive measures.



EDIT: BTW, I hope you don't think that becuase we are on seemingly oppositional sides of the discussion that I don't enjoy hearing every response. Thanks for the excelent discussion, and I look forward to page after page of further discussion. :thumbsup:

Ditto for me!
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss the topic so openly.

I feel at the very least we are all trying to find a solution to make life safer and better for others and that is a great ideal to share.

Hopolophobe is not a word in the english language (according to Webster College Edition 2005 and several other dictionaries I've checked). Would you care to explain it's meaning? If you mean people who are afraid of people who have guns, then you call into that group along with everyone else in the world.
What a great argument Spoiler: if your intent was to alienate yourself from people on both sides of this argument, including pro-gun people. You're really making me think Spoiler: that you misrepresent a majority of gun owners, who ar NOT gun nuts, but simply people who belive that their safety and the safety of their family depends on protection provided by owning a gun.
Prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. As you can see from my really long posts, I have studied this and I have made my decision based on both philosophy and reason. I'm not prejudiced against gun owners.

What lengths am I willing to take this? I am willing to take this as far as educating people that having a gun does not make you a better person for any reason. I'm willing to go as far as teaching children how to protect themselves by becoming upstanding members of society. I'm willing to prevent crime by preventing poverty. I'm willing to look gun nuts straight in the eye and shoot them with my reason, not a bullit. I'm willing to listen, but you'd better be ready for me to respond. I'm willing to tell people that guns HURT AND KILL, even in the hands of well trained people who love their country, etc. etc. I'm willing to walk up to the edge of your property and play sappy 60s and 70s anti-war songs over loudspeakers until you understand that you're not at war with anyone.

I'm also willing to listen and learn.

Hoplophobe = Person with an irrational fear of weapons or the gear of war. From the Greek "Hoplon" ( secondarily "Panoply" ) meaning "shield" and "Phobia" meaning irrational fear.

Maybe I don't represent a majority of gunowners; I truly wish that I did, because it would prevent a lot of the problems we see today. Things like the USA PATRIOT Act don't tend to survive very well when their authors are being tarred and feathered.

No, having a weapon does not make you a better or more moral person. It does, however, vastly improve your ability to defend yourself should the need arise. I don't forsee my car catching fire, but I carry an extinguisher just in case.

Teaching kids to be upstanding members of society is cool too...but only "upstanding" as it relates to not actually harming others. My kids will be raised never to initiate Force or Fraud; they will be harmless to peaceable people. They will also be raised, however, to be implacable foes of tyrants both petty and grand.

Preventing crime by preventing poverty is AWESOME. Let's start by ditching highway-robbery schema like Income Taxes and debt-based currency. Getting to keep 100% of a stable-value currency would go a LONG way towards improving our situation in this country...and would also keep our Government from invading other countries or paying for bridges to nowhere.

I am aware that guns hurt and kill; this is why I am NRA rated to instruct in firearms safety. The more people know how to use weapons safely, the fewer people will be accidentally shot.

I understand that I am not at war with Muslims, women, Jews, Iraq, Somalia, or the guy down the block. I am, however, a relentless opponent of Government tyrants and their Corporate partners-in-crime. With THEM I am at war; it simply happens to be a "cold" war of propaganda and words as the moment, as opposed to a "hot" war of bullets and IEDs.

If you are truly willing to listen and learn, you rock on about 6 different levels. Most people, on -both- sides of the debate, are not ( evidenced by the fact that many gunowners continue to vote Republicrat, despite their continual screw-job on the gunowning community. )

I apologize if my response seemed a bit over-the-top; I have simply had far, far, far too many encounters with hoplophobic gun-grabbers who expect me, my entire family, and all of my friends to simply "lie back and enjoy it" while they pump away at our rights. Mea Culpa.

I figured as much. Wouldn't that make pretty much anyone a hoplophobe? I mean most gun owners, such as dksuddeth, own guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. Most people who don't have guns do not have one beacuse they don't want a gun in the house. That covers a very broad spectrum of society in general.
I understand your point of course. I'm sure we'll agree on 99% of what we think the government is doing wrong. Still, I doubt that I could stop the government with a gun. Even if all the gun owners in the US banded together and were somehow able to become organized against the government, there is no way we can compete with the weapons they have. Our best defence against the government is the appeal to the soldiers. If we have the soldiers, and thus the military, on our side, then we have nothing to fear from Bush or any other tyrant. BTW, I think Bush'd look good in feathers.
I have to echo my argument with dksuddeth then. Isn't the function of a fire extinguisher to put out a fire? Isn't having a gun fighting fire with fire?
Always teach that freedom is not free, of course. Always teach, within the realms of reality, that you might one day have to defend your freedom, and that is a worthy cause. I'd give my life for my freedom. I, personally wouldn't kill for my freedom, but I understand why you would and I support that.
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
That is also 100% true.
Then we're always at war. America has used propoganda since it's conception, and it will always use propoganda to some extent. That's in the nature of a government controled by people who want power. Corporations have much different weaknesses than government. Corporations are actually very fragile, and if you really wanted to topple one, it wouldn't be that hard. I've considered this several times. The irony is that the current tool of the corporations, the media, is actually the greatest weapon against them.
Well, I am lucky to be addicted to studying. Part of that, to me,is to completly explore all sides of an argument and their various lines of logic and proof. Then and only then can you make an informed decision about anything.
Please understand that I almost deleted my post because I thought it was too harsh. I even contacted a mod about it.And the Mod sees no reason to delete....nor edit this post, excellent debate guys....keep it up. I want to make sure that you know that you have allies against those who would steal our liberty, but not all of us are armed with guns. I try to arm myself with knowledge. How successful I am in that is arguable, surely, but I doubt anyone can argue that I have an ineffective weapon.

When you say "Mea Culpa", do you mean taht you take responsibility for your actions? Or is it religious? Or both? Just curious.

Will,
"Mea Culpa" is a fancy way of apologizing. I'm Catholic, so fancy Latin phrases kinda come with the territory.

Dunedan, let me just say that you are not alone... in most aspects at least. I would fight, but I would value my life above my guns. I can always build more. I like to compare risk versus gain., and in death, I see no gain.

And, I will not get dragged into this argument, so don't bother responding to me directly if you will be responding at all.

I do not own a gun to protect myself from other people with guns. I own a gun to protect my family, period. It wouldn't matter whether the aggressor was carrying a gun or a pocketknife. If he comes at me or my family, I will defend myself and stop the threat.

All too often there are people out there who don't understand why I, or anyone for that matter, choose to use a gun instead of defending with my fists/foot, or something less lethal. My answer is pretty simple, why should I fight to defend myself or my family? I'm not out to prove i'm a badass by kicking the shit out of someone, or a group of people. I actually abhor violence, but i'm willing to employ the most lethal kind I can when it comes to the defense and protection of my loved ones. It has nothing to do with being a gun nut. A gun is the most effective weapon to provide protection for my family. I will not just let that be taken away without a very nasty opposition.

Alot of people get disheartened at the thought of 'what could we do against the government'. I tell you now, it would be easier than you think. there are how many military members? 2 million, give or take. Put that against 40 million armed americans, we win hands down. It doesn't matter what weapons they have. Theres no way that a 2 million person military could handle 40 million.

Especially to dksuddeth,

OK - let's extend Tachion's examples...

There are obviously places where even you, dksuddeth, do not carry a gun. Not in the shower. Perhaps not at the dinner table. I'm assuming it's not the first thing on your mind when you're making love. Are there times or places where you don't carry a gun because you feel comfortable and safe. Like when you're having tea in your living room with your mother. Or maybe, as a child you felt safe snuggled into bed.

But the fact is, even during these occasions, you are as safe or as much at risk as you are when you're carrying the gun. The safety factor hasn't changed. Just your feeling of being safe.

The fact is, the feeling of being safe is inside you. You can control and cultivate that sense of security. The key is to notice what you think about and change that. Notice what you do that heightens your feeling of being unsafe, and change those actions. You're carrying a gun because you feel unsafe and when you carry the gun, you are thinking about how unsafe you are. Change that. Change any habits that contribute to your mental chatter about how unsafe you are.

It's not about changing how safe you actually are. That never changes. And I'll go so far as to say you don't know how safe you really are or how safe you really aren't. That's a big picture you will never see.

What you can do is change your view of your world. That's all you ever have. And, the dinner table analogy I gave above, shows that if you change your view, you change your world.

So work on how you feel about you life. Work on what you focus on. Work on what is going on in your head.

Americans live in the most armed country on the planet. They are well policed with a highly organized force that is among the least corrupt in the world, even though, yes, sometimes things get past even the American police system. If you still feel unsafe under those circumstances, you need to work on your feelings of safety.

Increasing your feeling of safety is not going to be accomplished by adding more arms. You can't possible arm yourself enough. You will always be able to imagine arming yourself more. You can't win that internal arms race.

So call a truce and start thinking about something that will make your life matter.

With the rising crime rate, I would rather have the gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Boy scout motto, right?

http://rdu.news14.com/content/top_st...asp?ArID=79317

A Raleigh man shot during a Hillsborough home invasion is now behind bars.

Orange County deputies arrested Franklin Wade Davis and took him from the hospital to jail on Tuesday. He is being held on a $1 million bond.

They say 62-year-old homeowner Carlton Whitted, Sr. shot Davis and another man with his 22-caliber rifle.

Deputies say Davis shot Whitted's wife and daughter in the legs and that's when Whitted opened fire.

Davis is being held on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury.

Davis's alleged partner in the crime remains hospitalized at Duke University Hospital. He faces the same charges once he is released.

Police also took out warrants against a third man, who they said was at the home and took the two wounded men to the hospital. Investigators identified that man as Delmar Delonte Mitchell, 19, of Hillsborough.

Orange County Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass says no charges will be filed against Whitted.

With the speed that your safe after dinner family movie can turn from uneventful to nitemarish, even though the odds dictate you might never experience it, it's better to have it and not need it, that to need it and not have it. With the increase in public shootings at areas like malls and shopping centers, I'm not willing to risk the lives of my family when I can increase the chances of surviving a violent encounter SHOULD it occur.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori...g.6cdec88.html

Houston police are investigating the fatal shooting of a man in the 8400 block of Broadway Boulevard on January 14, 2006 at about 10:45 p.m.

The victim is identified as Jimmy Torres, 28, of 3101 Spencer Highway.
Police said a man was leaving the apartment complex and saw Torres standing in the parking lot and noticed that he was holding a pistol. They said Torres raised the pistol and fired at the man, striking his vehicle.

The man returned fire and Torres suffered gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to HPD.

The man left the apartment complex and drove to a nearby location to call the police. He returned to the scene with police. Charges will be referred to the Harris County District Attorney.

Had this potential victim NOT been armed, we might be reading a different outcome with the guy just going to his car ending up dead.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13121933.htm
A 66-year-old grandmother shot an intruder in her north Arlington home early Wednesday as he grabbed for her gun, she told police. Susan Gaylord Buxton said the training she received to earn her concealed-handgun permit saved her life.
"If I didn't have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldn't be here," she said.

Handguns ARE defensive weapons, it can be the difference between life and death for anyone who is just minding their own business if someone decides to try to victimize them.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=3656088
A homeowner shot and killed an intruder who broke into a home near Memorial Park.
The suspect jumped a fence and broke through the side door of a town home on Lacy at Dettering just north of Memorial Drive. He had a baseball bat.
A man was home with his wife and child. He warned the intruder that he had a gun. That didn't stop him.
HPD's Mike Walker said, "(As he) began to make his way through the residence the homeowner secured his wife and child. As he tried to go upstairs he shot him."

The intruder died at the scene. Police say classify the case as a justifiable homicide.
Police are also checking out reports that the suspect may have had an accomplice. Witnesses heard a car speed off after the homeowner fired shots.

Had the homeowner NOT had a gun, this could have resulted in 3 deaths. As it is, his family was not injured because he had a gun.

willravel, the sad part is that many of your points have been addressed before. The fact that you don't aknowledge this just says you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what anyone says. Most of your points are made as unsubstantiated personal impressions. I think you ought to seriously consider the opinion of people who work with law enforcement, the legal system and epidemiologists ... and polititians are a poor substitute.
I can't believe you're saying this.
I wonder if someone used that argument before the war on drugs?

The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description.

You should know better than to ask me that. You have no idea how offensive that request is. I'm still working ... get it?

It plays essentially NO role. I drove from coast to coast 3 times in my SUV and didn't get stopped even once for a moving violation - most of the time I was over the speed limit. The last time my registration was expired (I forgot to renew it until the day I had to leave).

Criminals don't fear police shootouts because the police are never there at the moment of a crime - (most criminals don't attempt daylight bank robberies in Hollywood). Home invaders don't confront the police - the police aren't expected to stop crime - it's not their job. Muggers don't confront the police. Carjackers don't confront the police. The police will attempt to get the criminal AFTER the crime is committed (whether that crime is rape or bludgeoning someone with a hammer in a home invasion which just happened in Plesanton) ... it's not their responsibility (or in their ability to STOP crime). Ask any cop ... the expectation people have that "cops stop crime" is unrealistic. Have you ever heard of a rape stopped by the police?

Let's take a home invader ... any one of them will be honest that they don't worry about the police ... it's not an issue for them at all (otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place). I don't know of ONE single career home invader (yes I know more than one) who was ever confronted even once by a cop during a home invasion. That includes homes with alarms. THE ONLY THING HE FEARS IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE RESIDENT HAS A GUN OR A PITBULL - PERIOD.

I have both guns and a big dog - but my dog isn't with me 24/7.

Not all home invaders, carjackers, muggers, rapists etc. even use a gun. In fact, with some of crimes (e.g. rape) MOST of them don't. I'll have to look into the statistics ... but that's just my impression. If I'm wrong I'll post.
wow. this tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from. Obviously you wish to ignore everything I said.

Don't insult both our intelligences by saying that ... I explained the term "defensive weapon." The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.

can a gun be used offensively?
absolutely! But the term "defensive" weapon refers to it's intended purpose by the user. If I drive a porsche I can call it a commuter vehicle because I drive it back and forth from work. It's not a euphemism. I shouldn't have to call it a "racer" because I don't race it. My guns are "defensive tools" because I choose to use them for defense - that's all.

In other words, "defensive gun" isn't used as a euphemism. A gun is not without lethal potential and can be used offensively as well. The police will apply the term "offensive weapon" to a car if it is used in a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on a helpless victim. Similarly the car can be used in "defense" if that same car were used to hit someone pounding on your windshield with a crowbar in an attempt to kill you.

You're smart enough to understand the analogy. The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. They're two different issues. I agree that one should secure the house in every way possible. But a defensive tool is a different measure - in fact, more useful than a gun is having a big dog. I have both because my dog isn't with me 24/7.

does that make it right?
There is a reason why we don't live in a pure democracy - that's because pure democracies aren't ideal and only serve to oppress a minority.

Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.

Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make it right. In this case it is a law that disproportionately affects a minority (gun owners). Yes. it also affects criminals but affects law-abiding citizens to a greater degree (that's because a ban means no la-abiding citizen, by definition, would have a gun).

why do you keep going over issues that have been addressed before unless you're more interested in winning an argument than uncovering the truth.

To quote, "He uses logic as a drunken man uses a lightpost ... for support rather than enlightenment." Don't be like that - I still respect you, willravel, but you're not making it easy.

Here is a taste of what SanFranciscans can expect after their little ban is put in to effect.

NY home invaders sought
Cops hunt for 3 in home invasion shooting35-year-old shot in the head; three suspects on the loose
(New York -WABC, January 19, 2006) - Police on Staten Island are searching for three armed robbers who forced their way into a home and shot the owner.
It happened about 2:30 Thursday afternoon at a home on Lake Avenue in Mariners Harbor.
Police say a 16-year-old girl was home when the robbers forced their way inside.
While they were ransacking the place, the owner came home and was shot in the head.
As the suspects were running away, they dropped a safe they had stolen.
The victim is in critical but stable condition.
The teenager was not injured.

FYI, NY is in the top 5 states when it comes to the restriction on guns. They had ONLY 540 murders in NYC for 2005. Thats 1.5 a day approximately. How many of these could have been prevented had the victim been armed?

Here is another story that shows criminals are afraid of people that carry.
Homeowner shoots one, the rest scattered
Police in Collierville say a homeowner shot and killed one of several people who broke into his house over the weekend.

Police Lieutenant Greg Flint says homeowner Brian Harper was awakened by his burglar alarm early Saturday and fired at the intruders with a .45-caliber handgun, striking one of them. Flint says the others scattered and Harper doesn't know if the several other shots he fired hit anyone else.

Police say none of the home invaders fired a weapon, but investigators don't know if any of them had one.

The dead invaders police record shows arrests since 1998 for violations including criminal trespass, especially aggravated robbery and cocaine possession.

And yet another story of using a gun for defense.
I have a gun, if you come in, I will shoot you
In class, New lectured that you have no control of the time or place when you might face a surprise showdown. In Needham's case, it came on a business trip to Florida, where she had checked into a hotel room, chained the door and set her pistol on the bedside.
"I was relaxing for a moment when somebody suddenly opened the door," Needham said. "They were coming into the room. The chain stopped them. I grabbed my pistol and racked a round so they could hear the action and know I had a gun."
Needham remembers shouting: "Stop! Do not come in! Who are you?"
The guy yelled back, deep and menacing, 'I'm coming in,' Needham recalled.
"Do not come in!" she shouted back. "I have a gun! Leave!"
The intruder wedged his arm past the door and wrestled to try to unhook the safety chain. The arm was "huge and hairy and it scared me," Needham said.
Her training kicked in. She positioned herself around a corner, pointing her .45 Colt semi-automatic pistol at point-blank range and again shouted a warning: "Do not come in. I have a gun. If you come in, I will shoot you."
For the intruder, logic apparently set in -- and the man ran off down the hall. Needham said hotel security did not find him. "Nobody knew anything."

Idiots in this next story confirm, we NEED to arm ourselves for defense.
One dead, one charged in shooting.
The Jackson County Sheriff's Department is investigating a shooting Sunday that left Brian Howell dead and his friend, Richard Hinton, in jail.
Sheriff Mike Byrd said Howell and Hinton went to get Hinton's ex-wife, who was with her boyfriend, Donald Sexton Sr., at Sexton's house on Yellow Bluff Road. Howell and Hinton, the sheriff said, had baseball bats and guns with them.
Hinton allegedly fired into the trailer, but did not hit anyone. Byrd said it appears Sexton returned fire in self-defense and struck Howell in the head. Howell was taken to a hospital in Alabama, where he later died.
Hinton was charged with shooting into an occupied dwelling. Byrd said the case against Sexton will be presented to a grand jury, which will decide whether charges against him will be filed.

This story shows how guns COULD save lives.
Woman mauled to death by dogs.
A 76-year-old woman died after Pit Bull Rottweilers attacked her this weekend. She was mauled to death while riding a lawnmower in her front yard in Thorndale, east of Round Rock.
Lillian Stiles died a horrific death, attacked by six Pit Bull Rottweilers. Lillian had been riding the lawnmower in her front yard when she was attacked. A passer-by saw it, tried to help, but was bitten instead, so he ran into the house looking for Stiles' husband, Jack.
"He asked me, he said, 'Do you have a gun?' And I said, 'Yes.' I came in the house and got my 22 rifle, and as I went outside, one of the dogs was charging toward me, face-to-face, and that's when I shot that dog," Jack said.
Jack scared off the other five dogs, but it was too late. The dogs had already killed his wife of 55 years.


Because people see alot of stories about the unlawful uses of guns doesn't mean that there aren't good and lawful uses for them. Stopping law abiding people from having guns is not going to save lives.

willravel, CA is where home invasions became quite common place in the late 80's and early 90's within the Asian communities. I specifically recall hearing about them starting in the SF area before I heard anything about them in LA when I was growing up there.

All the safety glass, bars, etc won't save you the moment you open the door and someone pushes it and you in. Hence home invasions have been on the rise.

I'll just go ahead and debunk the taser as a defensive weapon only issue right here.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...16robbery.html

December 16, 2005

A clerk in a Mission Hills liquor store grabbed a pistol and chased two masked men out of his store last night after they shot another clerk with a Taser, San Diego police said.

The masked men walked into Mission Hills Liquor on West Lewis Street about 8:50 p.m. and confronted one clerk, police said.

The pair demanded money, and when the clerk refused, he was shot with the Taser, a stun gun. His co-worker pulled out a handgun and chased away the would-be robbers.

And my guess is that these two that fled the scene in this next story will seriously reconsider an up close and personal robbery again.
Stafford Texas
A confrontation between a Stafford homeowner and a suspected armed robber turned deadly Friday night.
Stafford police say the resident had just pulled into his driveway on Maple Leaf near Emerald Leaf Friday evening when an armed suspect tried to rob him. The homeowner had his own gun. Investigators say he shot and killed the suspect.
Two other suspects sped away from the scene in a small red car. They are still on the run.
Stafford police officers say the homeowner will not be charged because he acted in self-defense.

And home invasions are not just about a group of people breaking down the door like a swat team. You end up with all sorts of deceitful methods like this one....

Woman foils home invasion, repels intruder
PARK RIDGE - A woman thwarted a home invasion Tuesday afternoon when she pushed a would-be robber off her porch, police said.
Holding a package and a clipboard, the man knocked at the woman's door on Kevin Court about 2 p.m. Tuesday, said Capt. Joseph Madden.
Assuming he was a deliveryman, she opened the door to let him in. But he pulled out a handgun, Madden said.
The woman immediately "jumped" him, pushing him down three or four porch steps, and both of them fell outside, Madden said.
Dropping his gun on the lawn, the assailant ran off and got into a red van driven by an accomplice. The vehicle was last seen headed west on Rock Avenue.
"She was very shaken up," Madden said. "I guess she must have been in good shape if she overpowered him and threw him down the stairs.
"It's definitely something we were very impressed with."

This part makes me sick though

At the same time, Madden cautioned against people trying to take such matters into their own hands.
"At this point I think she reacted and it worked out well for her," he said. "In the future, we never recommend for people to fight their assailant."

In other words, just lay down and submit to whatever atrocities and brutalities the criminal has in mind for you. don't fight back. I hate idiot law enforcement.

I'm not a politician yet, and my training is in psychology, which does give me some insight into criminality.
What I am saying is look at gun crime rates in D.C. before the gun ban and compare that to gun crime rates in SF right now. These rates are not the same.
Call it a defensive scenereo then, not a defensive weapon.
I'm sorry, but I was suprised you even posted what you did. I thought, "Well, if he's willing to spill the beans...". I didn't expect a respons, of course. I'm sorry you were offended, but what did you expect? You brought up obviously ongoing investigations, not me.
Okay, so it plays NO role. I concede on this.
It's not about police, it's about the ability to sucede, and what tools are necessary to aid in the success rate. A man with a spear is less likely to be able to break into a home (home invasions have seemed to take a center stage in this discussion, so I use that as my hypothetical scenereo) than a man with a gun. My triple pain glass windows will not stop a bullit, but they would make it much more difficult, and time consuming, to get inside without the aid of a gun.
I don't have a gun, or a big dog (my dog is a beagle puppy), but I think that even my presence (a man above 6' tall with big arms and a mean look on my face) would be enought to ward off many home invaders, ESPICICALLY if they didn't have a gun. Of course, not all people are big and menacing (I suppose it's arguable whether I'm menacing or not, but anyway...), so they should take adaquate security measures. Get the security doors, get the security windows. I know that it's impossible to prevent them from coming in 100% of the time, but most would give up after a while.
You mean like mase and a taser, both of which have bene proven weapons against rape, neither of which are a gun? What about those two weapons?
When you say 'defensive weapon'...where is the word scenereo in there? Defensive is an adjective for the gun, which is the mechanism. If you want to argue semantics, then argue them.
No, they are offensive weapons that can be used in a situation where you have to defend yourself by going on the offensive.
I think that most people should have dogs, both for their companionship, and for their loyalty when you are in danger. I am smart enought to see when one is trying to equate thing sthat, for the purpous of this argument, are not equatable.
Right and wrong are matters of p[hilosophy in this matter. I bel;ieve that they have the right to choose, and they did, legally. If you don't think they have the right to choose, that's fine, but you must admit that it was a legal vote.
Some cases shouldn't be put before a vote, of course. But many (I don't know how many, but certianally some) pro-gun people think that they should have the right to (for example:) have the right to vote on whether homosexuals can get married. This is only equatable to the gun ban because they both fit neatly into "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".
Like I've siad, I dohn't know if this is goig to work. If I were a betting man, I'd bet 10/1 on no. BUT that doesn't change the fact that it;'s not my decision. I live in San Jose, not San Francisco. I support their right to vote out guns, in that it is their right. The small chance that it will work isn't what makes me certian in the support, it is the fact that they voted for it. I know we live in a republic, but they still do have the right to vote on such things.
dksuddeth asked.
Well, I still respect you too, though you saying it's not easy to respect me makes it uneasy. Now I'm confused.

you do realize that the violent crime rate jumped 134% in 10 years after DC implemented the ban?

I hope I didn't overwhelm you with all of the news stories i posted.

I always read every word of every response in a thread I've posted in, unless I say otherwise. I learned that from Host's long - but unequaled in quality - posts. I do know that violent crime excilated in D.C. I've stated it before in my own posts in this thread, in fact (not that particular statistic, but the fact that crime in D.C. rose after the gun ban).

Sorry for being harsh.
Maybe I shouldn't have expected you to understand this. Even the suspicion of impropriety has consequences. It's not the legality that concerns me most. Persons have had their houses burnt down for allegation/suspicion alone.

For the record, I didn't "spill the beans" nor would I ever consider it. And I am not the only one who ever said that organized crime has ties to "big business."

While both the taser and OC spray are useful - they are far from "proven."

By "mace" I presume you mean pepper spray or OC spray. Of the many formulations, including ones exclusive to law enforcement, none can guarantee incapacitation. Some people simply aren't affected by it (I still don't know why). I personally know several people who have no problem being sprayed (some are LEOs and some are criminals). The most impressive "gentleman" I ever treated took on 8 full cans of LEO-only grade OC in a single encounter and had to be subdued by other means.

On the other hand I also know some unfortunate "gentlemen" who have severe life threatening asthma provoked principally by OC spray. You would think that's an incentive to behave ... it isn't.

Though I've never heard of status asthmaticus provoked in a "street encounter". But I've seen it happen in state correctional institutions. Believe me, watching someone suffocate to death by "less than lethal" use of force is horrible.

Then there's the taser.

Tasers cost around $800 each - each cartridge is extra. Do you know any civilian who even owns a taser or trained with one?
You have one cartridge loaded at a time ... what if you miss?
Modern tasers simply look like Glocks - (ease of transition for LEOs). If a cop saw you brandishing one in public - regardless of the scenario he/she will, understandably, approach you as if you had a firearm.
And, did you know that taser barbs are easily defeated by heavy clothing? Criminals do.

I'm not saying tasers and OC spray are useless. But they don't substitute the function of a gun - hence the "escalation of force" in LEO practice.

And, yes, I do have "less than lethal" means at my disposal but it's neither OC nor a taser. I'll write about it later - gtg.

Yes, I do mean pepper or OC spray (welcome to the OC). 8 cans? Can the average person take 8 cans? The average person isn't going to be attacked more than a few times before they take adequate measures to avoid the attack (changing the route home, parking closer to the building, moving to a safer neighborhood, etc.). Lets say you have to use your can 5 times on 5 different assailants. Now let's apply the odds to this. How many people, in your experience, are not effected by pepper spray? 1/5? 1/50? 1/500? 1/5000? The average perso would probably be effected, at least for enoguht time for the asailed to run, hide or get some kind of help.
I suspect that a elather jacket or such probably would have an effect of sheilding, somewhat, but what about jeans? Very few people wear anything much thincker than denim on their legs. Most criminals, honestly, are men. Shoot wheere it matters. As for being approached by an officer, let them approach. Pilice officers have a responsibility to make sure that people aren't brandishing weapons that are illegal. Once the officer sees a permit (I'm not sure what is necessary to carry one in public, you'd have to tell me), I'm sure everything would be fine. They might follow you for a bit, but that's a good thying if you are afraid of being assaulted.
I'll await your writing about it with much anticipation.

Will, you're telling people to play the odds with their life. That is plain wrong. After all that i've posted and that you've read I have concluded that you really care nothing about people doing what they feel necessary to protect themselves and their lives. All you care about is that you think guns are instruments of death and should be limited to law enforcement or military. Say that happens, I would imagine that you would eventually push for the government to remove firearms from law enforcement as well because you've heard about too many down on their luck criminals being killed when all they wanted to do was provide for their families and stealing was all they had. Take a look at the history of crime in England since they disarmed the people and the cops. If you still think getting rid of guns is going to stop crime then there is nothing short of your own family suffering at the hands of the criminal element. For your families sake, I do indeed hope that never happens, but if it does, don't say you weren't warned.

Instead of spray or taser, why not take some close combat training and get yourself a retractable baton?

Then I STRONGLY suggest you get volcano insurance, because you can't play the odds when it comes to your safety. I strongly suggest that you never drive in a car, fly in a plane, or walk down the street ever again. I suggest that you never eat at resturants. I suggest that you not go out in the sun. I suggest that you let fear of something that statisticly can't hurt you run your life.

As I said before, my point is not that OC is useless ... My point is that it's not "proven." If you've ever used OC spray (and I have ... I don't like it) you'll discover that there are many things that make it an inconvenient method.

First of all, you need to practice to know where to direct the spray (it's not as easy as you might think). Just take a cardboard target and spray it for the first time ... you'll probably be surprised to know that the point of impact is not where you thought it would be. And a living person is not a stationary piece of cardboard ... an assailant is a moving target who is aware that a can is being pointed at him.

You see, one of the most essential elements of a defensive tool whether it be OC, taser or a gun is that the user be able to operate it effectively under stress - this means that simplicity and practice are paramount.

OC also has a shelf life for the propellant. I did have the experience grabbing a full cannister that was only a couple of months off only to have it squirt an anemic 2 feet. Luckily I was practicing with it ... not defending myself. I would never rely 100% on OC for personal defense.

My arguments come from real world encounters. I'm not sure where yours are coming from. The crooks you see on COPS or Wildest Police Chases are not professional thieves nor are they representative of your typical predatory sociopath - the people captured on TV are only stupid thugs.

I never tasered anyone in the crotch (If it were effective I believe it would be taught as a method ... I'm not kidding) - but a taser works by conducting through skeletal muscle tissue. That's why it's ideal to hit the abs, arms or thigh. The genitalia are not skeletal muscle - perhaps the effecacy is attenuated.

That's not the situation I'm thinking about. If you use it appropriately in self defense be prepared to be proned-out and cuffed before they check on you. That's all. Until you're checked out (doesn't matter that they immediately discover it's a taser) you will be handled like a person brandishing for the purposes of doing harm or threatening until they get the full story.

FYI - My personal "non lethal" self defense tool is a Surefire flashlight. These are not like your Maglights but are small intense sources of light that can blind someone even in broad daylight. The one I have is as small as a magic marker but will push 60 lumens.
http://www.surefire.com/surefire/content/e2d_full.jpg

It is activated with a thumbpress when you hold it in your fist. Reflexively pulling your arm up defensively points the lamp in the direction of a threat.

The jagged bezel is for striking someone if you have to.

At night time you can illuminate a whole alley or an empty parking lot as well.

Mechanically it's simpler to use that both OC and the taser and it's more portable than either. I don't fear bullshit lawsuits for "blinding" someone with OC or causing bogus neurological trauma through the taser. If I'm in a street encounter my objective is to get the hell out of there and I can blind someone easily with 1 second of a bright blinding light and get away.

If you are smart enough to carry OC spray or a taser, then you should be smart enoughg how to use it correctly, and how it should be maintained, just like those who own any weapon.

Now this next part confuses the crap out of me.
I wrote:
To whcih you responded :
Do criminals not wear pants? Are most criminals women? Are you even reading what I write? You lecture me on not listening you you, and yet you don't listen to me. That's hypocritical.
Yes, but the lower abdominals are right under the crotch. Legs are the largest muscel grouping in the human body, so I suggest them. Again I must ask, are jeans enough to keep the current from effecting the legs?
Then that is a problem with law enforcement that needs to be addressed.

point taken. I misunderstood.

that's NOT a problem with law enforcement.
They are doing their job.
You just need to accept that you have to comply given the situation. It doesn't matter if you're the victim or not. That's what they're supposed to do.

If I was involved in such a situation then I accept that I might have a few bruises or scrapes or have to sit in the back of a police car for a minute or so if I have to.

I appreciate it. You are more than an excelnt adversary in dicsussion.
Are you required to have a permit to own a taser or the eye spray? If not, then the back of the patrol car is reasonable, but if you are, then why go through the trouble? If someone owned a gun legally and was thrown into the back of a police car inspite of their legal possession and not breaking any laws, wouldn't the pro-gun people get really pissed about it?

to quote you, apples and oranges. can I destroy a volcano with a pistol? but I can stop a criminal with a gun.

You said to protect your family from a threat, no matter what the odds are of being effected by it. It is possible that within the next week there will be volcano in your own back yard. The odds aren't good (roughly a 1:15,000,000,000 chance), but it's certianally possible. You act as if the odds don't matter, I prove that they do.

What steps are you taking to protect your family from cell phone cancer? What steps are you taking to prevent your kids from being brainwashed by MTV? What step are you taking to prevent your wife from being victimized by diseases such as the flesh eating bacteria?

You are being selectively protective, and it shows that there is alterior motive behind your wanting to own a gun. You can't use your family as an excuse if you don't protect them from other possible dangers.

pardon all references to attacks, but you're being selectively stupid. You know that NATURAL disasters are semi predictable at best, which is why we don't live in new orleans, st louis, california, or tornado alley. but criminals, as unpredictable as they are, can be fought against UNLIKE a tornado, volcano, earthquake, or hurricane. to use this as an argument just shows that you know you don't have a better argument than what i've given.

This thread is heading in a direction that I'm not comfortable with. I want to continue to show each and every member of tfp, including dksuddeth, the respect that they deserve, but this thread has caused me to lose my temper. I'm going to take a temporary hiatus from it.

Please forgive me for any disrespect I've shown you. This is a very touchy and passionate subject for all involved and we all feel strongly about our side in this. I sincerely apologize for any ill remarks to you and I hope that we can continue to discuss this later with cooler heads.

Good points.

There are some parents that become the "over protective" parents. I had one aunt growing up telling my cousin in the 80's when walking about San Francisco to not touch anything as he may contract something like AIDS (this was before it was shown to not be contracted in those manners.) At 30+ she's still over protective of him.

Does she want firearms in the house? Yes, she does because she grew up in the Philippines where the guards stationed at the house were armed. Here in the US she cannot afford an armed guard.

I know other families that are over protective of their kids in many manners, but do not subscribe to protection via guns.

While I would like to own a gun in NYC, I also know that it could be bad to own one here in a densly populated area where a stray bullet could reach a neighbor's apartment and kill someone innocently sleeping next door.

One difference is that, in discussions of this sort I don't see you (or the "other side") as an adversary. I believe I have a reasonable perspective and will discuss my views with anyone open to reason. If I didn't think you were at all reasonable I wouldn't be wasting my time on this forum ... I have much better things to do. It may be an academic exercise for many people but this issue is important to me and bears consequence on the way I conduct my life.

"Adversarial" interaction between "pro-gun" and "pro-gun control" people are counterproductive. It's important to aknowledge that both sides are essentially looking for the same thing - a safer way to live for ourselves and our families.

But if you want to pass legislation about firearms it's important to get the opinion of people who work in the fields of law enforcement, criminal psych, epidemiology, health care, etc. Unfortunately, the popular media doesn't enforce that perspective - it is in their interest in promoting a politically expedient view. The popular vote, like popular opinion, is sorely misguided if the general populace is misinformed.

e.g. how many people who voted for the "Assault Weapons Ban" really understood what it was about? Most people believed what they saw on TV - that it was about machine-guns and automatic weapons - when that was not the case at all (obtaining automatic weapons is already restricted - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with them - it's a misnomer). Unfortunately, everything "pro-gun" people said was depicted as attempts to obscure the issue ... when the opposite was true.

Believe it or not, the responsible gun-owners I know have no problem with that. If I am involved in an encounter and I am spotted with a gun or taser or whatever in my hand and have to be cuffed or "secured" for a few minutes ... what's the difference other than a loss of pride or the sense of personal control? Like most responsible gun-owners I empathize with the LEO's job and understand what has to be done under the circumstance.

My brother doesn't share my views or experiences. He lives in a $3 million house in Palo Alto. One day, he saw a bunch of federal agents moving on a neighbor's house - My brother being curious stepped out on his porch to get a better look - He was startled when one agent turned to him threateningly and ordered him to get back into his house. Now, the neighbor was taken away without incident but my upset brother called me - He understood why he was ordered to get back in but he was offended since his porch is his own property and he wasn't doing anything wrong. I told him:
1). If you see something going down to stay in the house. That was stupid to "get a better look." In fact, it'd probably be best to stay away from the windows until it was over. Curiosity be damned.
2). And if he hadn't complied he would have been cuffed and secured just to eliminate him as a "variable."

Most people don't understand that their personal pride is a secondary consideration. Don't get in the way of a cop's job.

From the Chicago Tribune: Man, 26, is fatally shot after traffic accident

A man was shot and killed Sunday night following a traffic accident on the South Side, police said.

The man, 26, who was not identified, was in a vehicle that was struck by another vehicle at about 7:50 p.m. in the 7300 block of South Indiana Avenue, said a Chicago police spokesman.

After the accident, the occupants of the two cars started arguing, and a man from the car that struck the first vehicle allegedly shot the victim in the head, according to a preliminary police report. It was not known if the alleged gunman was the driver or a passenger in the second vehicle, the spokesman said.

The suspect, who fled the scene, had not been arrested by 11:30 p.m. Sunday, said the spokesman.

Now I'm sure glad that chicago has that handgun ban or that killer might have gotten shot. :rolleyes:

Ok, how many gun control 'myths' did this story just debunk?

No idea.

10?

65?

3?

You're going to have to spell it out for me, I haven't a fucking clue.

i'll give you a hint on the first one...

that only law enforcement/military are responsible enough to have guns.

If I wanted to be awkward, I could read how the story also negatively affects your ratio of responsible:irresponsible gun owners, chances of being hit by stray bullets and likelyhood of a carelessly discarded weapon falling into criminal hands.

you could...

but the ROOT of the issue is the irresponsible law enforcement officer

not sure how you could read that in to it, but ok. As it stands, the story only points out how one supposedly responsible LEO fell in to the irresponsible category, doesn't mention a thing about all the responsible gun owners at all. That must be some of that media bias I keep hearing about.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I definitely have a firm opinion on gun laws and gun control.

Banning hand guns in any city will not reduce hand gun crimes.

Crack cocaine is banned. Marijuana is banned. A lot of shit is banned. Yet it's still there. Yes, let's punish the law abiding citizens of the US by taking away their defense against bastards that are willing to use guns to commit a crime.

If you take away the legal guns, the illegal guns will still remain. We are then defenseless. Unless the US wants to pay all of the former handgun owners to learn knife training and close quarter combat. And hand out bullet proof vests.

I can see it now. "let's rob that house......they look like law-abiding citizens. they won't have any hand guns. let's do this."

exactly.

what is the addage....

"if you outlaw guns, then the only people who will have guns are outlaws"

I'm just glad the NRA has such a powerful loobying group with congress.

sweetpea

Other way around, chief.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in the late 1860s, basically created the doctrine of Equal Protection in consitutional law.

The 2nd Amendment says this: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Interesting thing about the Bill of Rights and why they're different from other amendments: Rights are not granted by governments and are not exclusive to citizens. If the United States dissolved tomorrow we'd all still have the right to free speech, religion, assembly, to bear arms, to be secure in our persons and property, et al.
The 2nd Amendment does not create the Right to Bear Arms. It, like all Rights, exists independent of governments.Have you ever heard "regulars" used to refer to professional soldiers? What do you suppose "well regulated" means in light of this usage? Also, the heart of the law is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Not "the people in a militia" or "the right of the militia." The subordinate justification (a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state) for protecting a Right of The People isn't terribly relevant.Today? Yesterday? How many countries have run the numbers on invading the continental US and noted that civilian resistance is an unmanagable problem?
I'm not sure if you paid attention to how the American Revolution was waged, but do note that nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is there any reference to foreign threats.All of them? Anyone trained and/or proficient at arms is a member of the militia. The recent concept of "militia" to mean a dozen guys in camo that get together on the weekends to shoot AR-15s and try to use their club as a reason they all need Class III licensing has nothing whatever to do with the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Disclaimer: I don't own any guns and never have. I do periodically have to qualify and occassionally carry one at work. So keep the "Oh, you crazy gun nuts trying to compensate for your tiny micropenis with firepower" comments in the box.

Gun ownership with responsible citizens? Sure, why not. After all it is protect under our constitutional rights. But there is just so so so much more to guns and gun violence in the US than just the 2nd ammendment. I mean sure if someone feels the need to own a handgun for protection from the boogey man entering your house while you are sleeping, then sure get a gun. Even though in most cases of home invasions people aren't even awaken by a burglar or aren't even home, and by the time they wake up and see there house in ruins it is too late to draw your weapon from it's safe on the top shelf of your closet and oops, you left the key for the case downstairs to open the case, and then you struggle to get the thin safety sticker of the box of the ammo. But still, if you had managed to wake up in the middle of a home intrusion and were able to secure a loaded gun into your hands would you rationally be able to identify a thief and pull the trigger to end this persons life knowing that it wasn't your child sleep walking or going for a midnight snack, or a family member entering your house because there was a family emergency and your phone line got knocked out? I would put my money on no.

The NRA to me is just a bunch of little kids who abuse the 2nd ammendment and have no rational judgement. Speaking to a hard-core member of the NRA is 100% pointless. You could bring up 1,000 valid arguements on restrictions and limitations that should be put on "arms". It just falls upon deaf ears. If you do every manage to enter a debate with an individual of sorts you will see. If you do corner them in a legitimate arguement and have their backs against a wall, the only response you will get from them is. "Well, the second ammendment states..." Enough to make you pull your hair out and just want to move far far away from these people.

True what the previous post did say about taking guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. That would accomplish nothing at all. Guns would still remain in the hands of the wrong people and would probably become more of a threat than they were before. There could potentially be so many reasonable solutions to the gun epidemic and murder rate from guns in the US, but as long as there are assholes like the NRA defending guns and not people. Well, we all see the outcome everyday. Maybe this year we can hit that 12K murder mark from guns. We were only 200 shy last year. Good job Heston. BTW NRA...National RIFLE assoc. ;) Stick to what the name of your organization states. It's not NHGA.

1. Firearm control will not work in the United States. If you doubt me, look at the census data between areas that have strict gun control laws and those that do not; you will see no causal relationship between having stricter control and lower incidence of firearm-related assault and murder.

2. Doesn't this belong in politics?

3. In response to "binary": the right accorded by the Bill of Rights would not exist if the United States dissolved. They exist only because they are supported by the current infrastructure, and if said infrastructure no longer exists, then neither do the rights, regardless of how essential your society deems them.

The Bill of Rights accords no rights. The Bill of Rights limits federal power to infringe certain Rights. It's a formal acknowledgement that these Rights exist, but they exist independent of the government. Since the government does not grant these Rights, it cannot take them away.

The reason people get a bug up their ass when people say "Just amend the Constitution." in respect to the 2nd amendment (or any of the Bill of Rights, really), is that if you say there's a way to wave a magic pen and remove the Right to Keep and Bear Arms... that way will work just as well for the Right to Free Expression, Free Exercise of Religion, et al.They'd still exist, they'd just be unjustly infringed and oppressed. And it would be our duty to fight injustice. That's part of the reason why we continue to create the US Government... to protect our rights and, to a recently much lesser extent, protect the rights of others. If it becomes incompetent or ineffective at that task, or hostile to that task, it serves no further useful purpose.

Regardless of rationale, this is what will happen if the gun ban remains over the next couple of years:

1.) Statistically significant increase in violent crime - ESPECIALLY rape - which has been the one crime that disproportionately rises with every increase in gun-control legislation (e.g. this is what happened when the Brady Bill went into effect.)

2.) If there is only a moderate increase in violent crime it will not be discussed in the media at all. The opponents of gun-control legislation will publish the facts on blogs and in forums like these ... while gun-contol advocates will dismiss the statistics as biased and probably twisted simply because it's coming from people supporting gun-rights. Still, the majority will refuse to find an objective source for facts.

3.) If there is a significant increase in violent crime and rape - then the blame will be placed on the surrounding counties. Gun control advocates would paradoxically use it as "proof" that the ban needs to include surrounding counties... and so on and so forth. Its just like what's going on in Canada (with its restricitve laws) where violent crime has increased in comparison to the crime rates in the US ... and the blame is placed on gunrunning from the US (where overall crime rates have decreased).

I'll mention the analogy with The War on Drugs again ... If anything it's easier to find illegal drugs because it's a chemical that can be detected in the body, smelled in many cases, sniffed out by trained dogs - yet people are still growing MJ in their back yards and cooking Meth in their basements without problem. Controlling illegal guns will be much more difficult because, broken down, they're just pieces of metal, springs and machinery that wouldn't look out of place in a box of machine parts.

In recognizing these rights, it is according them. Rights do not exist ipso facto; they are created for and by societies. If the US dissolves (which I extrapolate to mean into anarchy) then those rights are no longer existant.

I do understand what you mean about people wanting to amend the Bill of Rights though. The government amending something that is meant to keep them in check is a bit of a conflict of interest.

HUGE disagreement here. If the US were to dissolve, I'd still have the right to free speech and religion. I'd still have the right to be reasonably secure in my home. I'd still have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and I'd still have the right to keep and bear arms to protect and secure those other rights. The government does not grant these rights to me, they are inalienable rights as written by the founders who acknowledged that they pre-exist.


the government cannot just 'amend' the constitution. There is a huge expansive process that ultimately needs the consent of a supermajority of the people in order to ratify a new amendment. What we have now is a minority of people using their influence among legislatures to 'regulate' rights out of existence. The gun control act is the best example of it. From there it just slides down to states and localities.

The problem with that outlook is that, if there is no government to enforce your beliefs and somone happens to disagree with you, tough shit. When there is no government or cohesive set of social norms, there is only one right, and that is the right of the strong to impose their will.

Why should the government enforce my beliefs on others? Why shouldn't someone be allowed to disagree with me? The government is not there to provide or enforce a societal standard when it comes to individual rights, especially those rights that are natural rights listed in the constitution. The government has no real responsibility to you and reading the gonzale vs. castle rock decision should tell you that.

The primordial order of strong ruling the weak is an animal kingdom rule, not a human society rule, and as such humans have every right to use whatever means necessary to defend their life. The government does not 'grant' me these rights, they are natural rights granted to us by our creator. They pre-exist the government.

Upon much reflection, I have deicded that at this debates very core is a matter of my perception and philosophy differening greatly from others. I will let Ghandi speak for me in answer to several previous insinuations: "Nonviolence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Nonviolence is the greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. Nonviolence springs from love, cowardice from hate. Nonviolence always suffers, cowardice would always inflict suffering. Perfect nonviolence is the highest bravery. Nonviolent conduct is never demoralizing, cowardice always is."

I am such a strong believer in nonviolence, that I believe that violent self defense is still violent, whether the cause of that violence is nobel or not. Ghandi again: "However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes." It took me years of martial arts training and much violence to realize that true peace means a dedication to nonviolence that is uncompromising. While I have the skill to defend myself or attack someone with a high success rate, I know that I will never be able to do it beacuse it's wrong. When I hear people justifying murder or violence, no matter the reason, I see one thing: entitlement. While you will not agree with me in this, I must tell you how I perceive the subject. If a man acts in such a way as to purpously take my life or the lives of my wife or daughter, he is posturing for battle or conflict. If I counter and injur or kill him, have I won? Is it really a victory if he is left injured or killed? I would say not. It is the general sense in our society that it IS okay to murder in self defence that I speak of when I say entitlement. This is why I so ademently support security doors and passive defensive measures. Buying a gun to defend yourself is similar to making a doomsday device to keep yourself safe. It is the most severe form of contradiction.

If you wish to buy a gun in order to keep yoursrelf safe, please do so. If you want to question why others don't have a gun, expect an answer that has more to do with philosophy than statistics. I realize, as someone who lives in the real world, that the statistics point to probable failure for the San Francisco gun ban. I also know that I sleep more soundly knowing that others are, like me, so dedicated to non violence that they are willing to gamble their lives on it. If it doesn't make sense to you, that's fine. I expect no concessions on the matter. I just wanted to come back fresh and let you know what I was thinking.

I apologize if I offended anyone with my eariler posts. I started to lose my temper, and that is something I have to live with.

One more Ghandi quote to go out on: "You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

I understand and see what you are saying Willravel... and i am the most non-violent person you could ever meet, and i agree with you that being peaceful is VERY important.

but if some guy is going to try to rape me or try to kill me... i'll be prepared to protect my life at the cost of his.
Once you've known someone (and i have, she was my good friend) who was kidnapped, beaten and raped... it changes how you feel about people and about how far you will go to protect yourself. If my friend had had something to protect herself when she was kidnapped, her whole life would be different.

that's why i support gun ownership and self-protection is why most people i know support it.

sweetpea

I watched my best friend get shot in the face and I still don't believe that self protection takes priority over nonviolence. I would also say that you are probably not the most nonvoilent person I could ever meet. If you are prepared to protect your life at the cost of an attacker you are non nonviolent. This is just my philosophy, and I don't want to judge those who have a different philosophy. I only mean to point out something like: Vegitarians don't eat meat. Nonviolent people don't kill.

and i realize my own faux paz by saying i'm non violent. rather, i meant, i'm not violent by nature, but would be prepared to be, point taken :)

i see what you are saying. and i respect that you feel that way. thank you for clarifying.

Sweetpea

OH, gotcha. I know that you're not violent by nature. Most people are not violent by nature. I appreciate your understanding. I wish more people were able to be as understanding as you.

I agree there exists a noble virtue in a life conducted according to a personal principle (e.g. "nonviolence") - especially when it bears the risk of personal loss or harm. For example, to take the "high road" of principle may require that one to "turn the other cheek" in the face of harm or to never raise one's hands in aggression towards another human being. And that is a very difficult thing to do – I can respect someone who is strong enough to live that way.

However, for me, that philosophy falls entirely apart when you accept responsibility for the well-being of other people (e.g. as a father with family or as a leader of a town, city, state or nation). It is one thing to be willing to sacrifice your own health and life for principle … but should you sacrifice the lives of the people you govern (or love) to satisfy your personal principles?

Note: Leadership of a “movement” is a different matter, however. As an iconoclast for ideals, Ghandi’s influence in history and world consciousness is undeniable. I’ll leave it to the reader to research Mahatma Ghandi’s effectiveness as a responsible husband to his wife and father to his children.

In my opinion, self-proclaimed “non-violent” purists thrive in self-indulgence but suffer in positions of responsibility for the well-being of others.

I too have studied different types of martial arts since childhood. The practice and skill does grant one a sense of peace in that you have “nothing to prove” in a potential altercation. I believe that the cause of much aggression and violence is often simple fear of the unknown – and violence is frequently the reactive manifestation of simple ignorance. (or "cowardice" as you describe above).

… in that much I completely agree with you.

However, I don't believe that all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.

In your case that would be true. But for me I’m not concerned with the issue of “victory” because for me it’s a purely practical issue, not a purely philosophical one.
If I cause harm to another individual because they posed an otherwise unavoidable threat to my family then my decision to act represents a simple equation: his/her life vs. my loved one(s) life (lives).
The need to make such a decision is the consequence of his/her initiative - not mine.

Does it mean I have no qualms about doing it? Not at all. If I ever killed another person ("justifiably" or not) I will most certainly endure the psychological and emotional aftermath for many years ... probably for the rest of my life.
I don't look forward to facing that possibility, but currently I believe I may have to accept that burden some day if the lives of my family are at stake.

But FAILING to protect my family also bears an emotional and psychological burden - one that would be more unplesant to face. I couldn't forgive myself if I had to choose this path.

Perhaps in your “moral” sensibility I have “lost” because I resorted to violence. Fine. The value of my entire life doesn’t revolve around a singular philosophic principle.

---------------------

I don’t believe that life is constructed solely of moral dualities. Not all choices are clearly “right” or “wrong.” “Moral dilemmas” are, by definition, those cases where personal principles come into conflict – and where every option has a measure of “good” and “bad.”

I believe life isn’t simple. If I choose to steal bread to feed my family I have weighed the consequences and made a commitment. If I choose to let my family starve rather than steal I have chosen the path of a different principle. I believe life is full of ugly decisions in an imperfect world. The purest life can only be conducted in isolation beyond the complexities of people, community and political strife. Maybe that's why "holy men" often live as celebate hermits without possessions or responsibilities.

IMO If life was meant to be “pure” without conflict … then what’s the point of living? That’s what I believe.

Do I feel at peace understanding that I have the means of committing violence with a firearm? Of course not. But it is my choice.

If your choice is different - I can't venture to say you were "wrong" - only that your balance of principles is different.
I don’t have a gun just because society says I can justifiably kill people. That's not what responsible gun ownership is about.

Should I consider you a more dangerous person because you mentioned you are adept at martial arts? How would you feel if people said that your training just means you are a violent person? How would you feel if the laws determined that you, as a martial artist, has a greater potential for violence against your family and/or society because you have chosen to learn skills specifically designed to cause injury or death? How would you feel if, because of that, you had to register with the local sherrif every time you move to a different county?

As a fellow practitioner of martial arts I believe that the principle of knowledge (e.g. in martial arts) is a greater empowerment. Like you I believe I have become even less prone to violence when I became more proficient in learning martial arts. That’s because the study of martial arts gives knowledge and self-awareness especially in the face of adversity.

For myself, firearms training is very similar. When you are properly educated (e.g. at Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, LFI, Front Sight etc.) you are introduced to the legality, the emotional consequences and the responsibility of owning a firearm. In fact, many people seek the training but choose not to carry a gun in the car because of the consequence – often they return for training simply because it grants knowledge. Professional firearms instruction is every bit as much a mental, physical and philosophical discipline as the study of martial arts using hands, bo staff, bokken, katana, escrima, kama or kerambit.

Professional firearms instruction teaches breath control, stance, balance, awareness, concentration, logic, improvisation, physical conditioning and personal discipline.

Of course that’s simply your opinion.

But, as I have replied many times before, (i.e. every time you make this same statement) –“Passive security measures” and guns serve entirely different roles. A gun won’t provide a physical barrier between you and an intruder in the living room. And a security door won’t help you when you get pulled from your car in the middle of LA during a riot.

It’s only a contradiction if one considers himself or herself a non-violent purist. I don’t consider myself a non-violent purist.

Is it a “severe form of contradiction” that you, as a practiced martial artist, considers himself a non-violent person? Ghandi wasn’t a martial artist, as I recall.

Gun ownership IMO is only appropriate when an individual is willing to take the initiative to learn the discipline of responsible ownership – which isn’t easy at all. I agree that most people (including many existing gun-owners) are mentally and emotionally unprepared to own a gun.

I never questioned your decision to NOT have a gun. Like many others I only respond to opinions that challeng MY decision to have one. The gun ban affects gun owners it has nothing to do with people who choose NOT to own a gun.

I do understand and respect your philosophy. That is why I’m not one to tell you that you are conducting your life inappropriately. Like yourself, I offer my beliefs as they relate to MY vision of the world. I wouldn’t venture to assume my beliefs are universally acceptable.

Please don’t lose your temper. As far as I’m concerned this is a peaceful discussion. I wouldn’t be a part of it otherwise.

Ultimately, the responsibility of one lies in him or herself. Let me put it this way. I have a 2 year old daughter. At one time ot another 24 hours a day, my wife or I are near her. If someone were to try and hurt her or take advantage of her, I would not sit in front of the state capitol building with a sign. If she were taken for monitary gain (ransom, slave labor), I or my wife would simply confront - stand between her and the kidnapper - and try to resolve the issue. "What are you doing?" and a simple posture would deter many, but not all. Let's say that this person has a knife (we've overused guns in the hypothetical situations posed in this thread). This person wants to do me bodily harm. I can stay between him and my daughter without hurting or killing him. If I were to try and take the knife, for example, I would not need to hurt him. We can go through hypothetical situations until we are blue in the face [fingers], the point is that I believe that I can live and even be responsible for my daughters life without being violent, under any circumstances.
My daughter is not dead or injured because of my philosophy. Because of a man like Ghandi, I have learned that there is an outlet for my furstration with violence. In fact, I can take a passive role in decreasing violence in the world. Ghandi's teatment of his family was and is enexcusable, but it doesn't negate his great work. No one is perfect, and we all have our demons.
[QUOTE=longbough]However, I don't believe that all acts of violence are a product this mechanism. It’s a convenient stereotype to make about all acts of violence … but that would be both naïve and wrong.
I can't speak for others - only myself. If I ever make the unfortunate choice to enact some violent means to resolve conflict it wouldn't be a matter of "justice" (as you describe) at all. It would be for the explicit purpose of saving the lives of people I care about. Justice is for the courts/philosophers/pseudo-intellectuals to decide - I'm just trying to protect my loved ones.[/QUOE]
I recognise that not all violence stems from a lack of self control, or anger, or rage, or anything dishonorable. I know that much violence comes from self defense. I have no illusions about that. "However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes."
Moral equasions offer a dangerous prescedent for negotiating one's morality. What use are morals if you do not adhear to them? Also, a fight takes two or more. One person cannot fight.
I appreciate that you do not take this lightly, nor would I expect you to. The logical conclusion from your responses and points is that you are educated and thoughful, and more importantly sympathetic.
I realize that. Either way, this is a terrible situation that no one wants to find himself or herself in. The one difference between us is a simple difference of perspective.
This is hardly my only moral, and there are other related morals attached to this one. In fact, most people have a very intrecit system of morals that each have their limits, in fact mine could even have their limits after all I make this post being of sound mind. I don't know how I would respond if my daughter were in danger and I were in a position to help her. The closesest I have come to that was a bad cold she had a year ago.
Agreed and understood.
I understand that. You have a gun because you've taken a different path on your feelings about violence. In the extreme situation where you or one of your loved ones is in danger, you have a gun as the absolute last resort. I understand.
I do not think you are dangerous because you have a gun. I think you could be dangerous to someone who puts you into a situation where you would use that gun. If I were a gun owner, I would not be dangerous to anyone. My gun would be in a safe, in the basement, behind the old dresser. It would be in a place where no one could get at it, even me.
It's all very Daoist, I know, but in understanding violence I was able to get a better perspective of peace.

My whole point was that such a decision has nothing to do with morals or legality. It is a (fortunately rare) circumstance that is faced each day by someone in the world.

I don't understand your point.
We're talking about guns, right?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from:
If someone wants to steal my wallet, car, briefcase etc. I DON'T reach for a gun - I let him have it all. That's what insurance is for.
If someone verbally threatens me, I DON'T reach for a gun. I try to talk to him and find a resolution.
If someone verbally threatens my family, I DON'T reach for a gun. I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
If someone verbally threatens my family AND he's holding a knife I DON'T reach for a gun. I stand between him and my family and try to talk to him to find a resolution.
But if a stranger is charging at my helpless family with knife in hand, clearly in a threatening manner, - I WILL draw my weapon to STOP him.

I don't see this as a fight.
My intent is to STOP an act of violence against myself or a loved one ... that's all. The mortality/morbidity of my target is not the main issue. This is not just a euphemistic distinction:

If I happen to shoot and miss but the agressor drops his knife and/or runs away - I am successful.

If I shoot him and the bullet lacerates the thoracic aorta but he is able to plunge a knife into a loved one just before he dies from rapid internal bleeding - I am unsuccessful.

My only concern is the protection of my family - the aggressor's health is a secondary consideration. That's why it's not a fight.

I think we all shudder to consider that possibility. I appreciate your honesty. If anyone ever claimed they had no problems withold their parental obligations in favor of their moral beliefs I'd say they were full of crap.

I have seen many cases in my work and life where people who never considered such a scenario found themselves facing it - Where they had to act within 1-2 seconds ... and couldn't.

Which isn't trivial, I know.
As a physician I'm terrific at treating others ... but it's much harder for me to feel objective with my own family. You think the worst things when a child has a severe cold. I can still feel helpless in that case ... and I'm a doctor!
What I get from daoism is the absolution from expectation - to understand that a life of principle isn't calculated to create goodness, peace etc. ... That I can live by my beliefs ... but that won't guarantee that shit won't happen.

I don't think I've posted in this thread yet.

Heres what I think:

http://gullyborg.typepad.com/photos/...zed/heston.jpg

Don't fuck with Moses.

/tongue and cheek mode off

I think it's important to say that Ziadel DOESN'T always scare me.

I believe that, but admit it, your terrified of moses, you're scared shitless that at any moment he will descend and reign blows upon you while laughing maniacally.











:p

I will say this in all seriousness tho, I like guns. I like all weapons. A lot. So much so in fact that I'm moving 2,000 miles to a place that is much more gun friendly. If things change there I'll move somewhere else, until I run out of places to goto, then there will be a problem.
I carry a firearm every day, it's not something I take lightly outside of jest, every one of us has a duty to our loved ones to fight kill and die with the most effective tools necessary to defend life and liberty. To not do so, to me is unfathomable and in many cases unexcusable. Inherent in the ability to kill is the ability to save life, imo.

I'd like to add one more ghandi quote:

MAHATMA GANDHI, PEACEFUL REVOLUTIONARY
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act
depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

Also from Mahatma Ghandi: "Better far than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle. "

Gonzales LA police above state law and supreme court

I could be wrong, but my guess is that after the taxpayers get a bill for millions of dollars because their police are violating civil rights, they will care about it then.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

you see, this, more specifically, is what I am referring to when I talk about protecting yourself from the police. Every cop swears an oath to uphold the constitution, to violate it like that is treasonous. I think we all know what the penalty for treason is. In a pinch a tall tree and an extension cord will work just fine.

I own guns and I'm not frightened or feeling powerless. So far none of my guns have ever been used for anything other than target shooting. But self-defense is certainly a consideration.

I know that not everyone is out to kill me. I also know that there are people out there who wouldn't hesitate to kill me if they thought they would benefit from it in some way.

You may believe whatever you want about which rights human beings are "inately" given. My point is that, no matter how strongly you may believe in those rights, they only exist in the practical sense if they are agreed upon and enforced by society (the government being a direct institutional embodiment thereof).

Let's say for example that you believe that everyone has the right to live without being insulted. There is no government at this time, of any sort. A man comes along who happens to believe that everyone has the right to say absolutely anything that they want. He insults you. Did he just violate human rights, or did he merely act upon human rights? The only way to define whether his action was in accordance with his rights as a human being is if there is a larger group, society represented by the government, who will decide. Otherwise, the man who insulted you had the right to do so, because he imposed it upon you. If you had a shotgun and you shot him for doing so, then it was you who had the right not to be insulted, because you imposed your will on him, in the form of punishment.

My comments were more about how the social fiction of the US Government defines itself in respect to the social fiction of Rights. It's about how the government, on paper, is allowed to function.

People say "If you want to ban guns, amend the constitution." This misses the fact that the government is not authorized to make laws infringing the Right of The People to bear arms any more than it is authorized to make laws forcing everyone to convert to Mormonism or to criminalize questioning the conduct of the Presidency.

Freedom of speech is just as sacred a Right as owning a gun or being able to believe in whatever deity you prefer. Anything that can be done to gut the 2nd Amendment can be practiced equivalently on any other Right.

:hmm:

maybe you could use a more realistic example.

and have they? I know the 2A has been gutted in almost every state in this union, Illinois/new york/mass/california are the best examples i know of, the other amendments have been gutted by this and other previous administrations but why did they? because we allowed it to plain and simple but that certainly doesn't make it right.

I think it's pretty realistic, but sure I'll toss out some more. :)

Let's say there is a government in place. Someone breaks into your house and steals your stereo. How do you know that you currently have the right to ownership of property, and to have your own private property? Because if you call the police (a branch of the government), people will come and enforce that right for you.

Or speaking practically, women in certain poor nations do not have the right to free speech. You and I may believe that the right to free speech should be universal, but their circumstances (a government and social system that do not recognize a woman as having the right to free speech) state that they do not have that right.

A much more realistic example. thanks.
whether someone breaks in to my house or not has no relevance to whether or not a government is in place. The government is not there to protect me, it is there as a 'reactive' force to administer justice. I still have the right to my own private property and its privacy as well as the right to protect it from someone who would break in and steal it. With a government in place, they only have the right to prosecute as 'the people' to provide justice and show the criminal element that 'the people' speak with one voice against those that violate those individual rights.

We, in the USA, have the right to free speech. We consider this a pre-exixsting right. Just because other nations have allowed a single leader or group to assume control and deny them that right does not mean that this right does not exist, it is just being denied them at that time by those in power at that time.

This is the problem with alot of peoples thinking. The government is not there to provide, protect, or promote our own individual rights, we do that. That is what is so important about the 2A, when the government decides that it's power is more important than our rights, we can tell them 'not so much'.

It's really not that simple. I honestly believe that the state does NOT have the right to take a persons life, a.k.a. capitol punishment. I have a friend who swears it's the right of the people to have justice and remove the evil from the world by killing those we have proven guilty. Who's right?

Rights are relative, and the rights that we practice now have more to do with the history of government and less to do with philosophy or morality.