The Great Gun Debate

[FATC1TY]

OK, to go a slightly in a different direction, there are lots of people out there who take judgment altering substances such as alcohol and worse. These people can easily own guns! A car has no sinister purpose, but in the hands of someone whose judgment is impaired it can be lethal, so just imagine the carnage a gun in such hands could cause. How many usually decent people have got into a drunken fight at some point? If you had a gun nearby can you honestly say that you wouldn't have been tempted for the briefest of moments to use it?

I forgot to answer this section.

You claim that a car has no sinister purpose. I can see how it wasn't "designed" to kill, but the matter of fact is, people die more from a car than they do by the gun. What about knives? Should we all resort to just ripping our foods apart, and burning our ropes in two? Knives are used for TONS of things, but I certainly know that knives were made to CUT, and cutting a human is certainly not something that would be good.

Now, at this point, from your side, you would argue that the knife wasn't invented to kill. But to cut food, or whatever you can come up with. But who's to say that it was only invented for that? What if it was made to kill animals for food??

Your argument that people with cars, and people with guns will kill others when they are impaired.. Your right.. But you don't see anyone calling for cars to be banned for DUI's? Do you? You see them having their licenses taken away.. In the states, they become felons... That means they can't legally buy a gun, own a gun, or posses a gun.

But wait.. Your going to say that it's still easy for them to get a gun right? Your correct, the same way a CRIMINAL, who that felon now is/was, isn't allow to have a gun.. The same way people who have NO licenses, or suspended licenses will still DRIVE a car!

Countless times will a person who's been slapped with multiple DUI's, with no licenses continue to get behind a wheel of a car and continue their destruction.

The difference in this, and is you try and put a specific label on what you view a tool or item's sole purpose and don't take into account any auxiliary reasons, or real life ramifications of said reasons.

The same clause goes for the drunken fight.. I can't recall seeing any "decent" people getting into bar fights and killing another person. Those are decent people. Hell, in my opinion if your in a bar and can't hold your liquor and fight, your not a decent person in my eyes anyways. I've seen people grab bricks, sticks, bolts in their fists... Those are now weapons.. what would you have to say about those? Their purpose at the time is to cause destruction.. no?

In my daily life, I can't decide who's a decent and not so decent person. I'm not in a nanny state and leave it up to others to make sure people don't do drugs, don't lie, don't steal, rape, and otherwise cheat on their taxes. Thats not my job, nor would I care to even attempt to ascertain any of those elements. My job is to protect me and mine. My government doesn't need to tell me "it's all okay" and that I have no right to take a life. I will take care of a life threatening situation if it ever arises, and I have enough moral fiber to know when and how to use it.

 

[FATC1TY]

A week or so there was breakin at a home just outside Madison, the occupant of the home heard someone downstairs & got his shotgun. he came out of his room & the intruder was running up the stairs at him, 1 blast & the intruder was killed. He was unarmed but no way for the homeowner to know that, maybe the intruder was good at martial arts?

The intruder had a long string of run ins with the police & was currently on probation. No charges are or will be issued.

What could have happened had this occupant not had a gun??

Probably would have been beaten to near death. If he had a wife, she probably would have taken the same treatment.. They would have been taken for everything..

But the sheep will cry foul.. That the criminal didn't have a weapon.. That he had a hard childhood, and was in and out of trouble. They will say no one has the right to protect everything they've worked for.. They will say someone dying over material objects isn't right, it can all be replaced, and insurance will cover it.

Point is.. insurance and more material objects won't fix the psychological issues and the feeling of being taken advantage of after the act is done. You'll never sleep just the same, and never feel completely free and comfortable.

Defending my castle, to the best of my ability to know that I did everything within my means and my right to do so, WOULD allow me to sleep at night. And as an added bonus, it would also deter others from trying it when their "friend" who's now in a nice wooden box, tried to storm my castle. How efficient is that?

 

[FATC1TY]

Source your statement FAT?

Oh and the latter is true, which is why I said it.

It's been all over the news a few months back. He shut his mouth once he realized the pot was going to boil over, and Obama was taking the heat. He was disguising it as something "Mexico" wanted.. That it would stop the cartels... But how stupid are people in their country? Why should be change our laws and right, to protect people who drain our country for everything it offers? He promptly got quiet once it got out, and they backed down when the NRA flexed.


Holder Revives Talk Of An Assault Weapons Ban - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Another Bright Shining Lie by Michael Gaddy

And you can read his bio about him holding hands with Janet Reno, and trying to destroy the 2A.

 

[zaphod]

Probably would have been beaten to near death. If he had a wife, she probably would have taken the same treatment.. They would have been taken for everything..

But the sheep will cry foul.. That the criminal didn't have a weapon.. That he had a hard childhood, and was in and out of trouble. They will say no one has the right to protect everything they've worked for.. They will say someone dying over material objects isn't right, it can all be replaced, and insurance will cover it.

Point is.. insurance and more material objects won't fix the psychological issues and the feeling of being taken advantage of after the act is done. You'll never sleep just the same, and never feel completely free and comfortable.

Defending my castle, to the best of my ability to know that I did everything within my means and my right to do so, WOULD allow me to sleep at night. And as an added bonus, it would also deter others from trying it when their "friend" who's now in a nice wooden box, tried to storm my castle. How efficient is that?

You are jumping to a conclusion here. Local media has agreed with the DA in saying the act was justified. The home owner has also voluntarily talked to the media expressing HIS doubts as to whether he did the right thing. He also said it happened so fast that it was a blur. He will be second guessing forever. One of my employees was also put in the same situation. Shot an intruder once face to face and 4 more times in the back as the intruder was running away. 30 years ago. He still regrets the final 4 shots but not the first one. AGAIN morals are not an easy thing. Each individual must deal with them. Some will deal with it easier than others.

To predetermine you will come out with your guns blazing during a apparent home invasion may or may not be prudent.

The green highlight can be said about an unjustified shooting too.Cuts both ways.

With great power comes great responsibility!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not for resending 2nd amendment but am for common sense in defense of the castle. Know your target is the first rule of gun safety.

 

[FATC1TY]

I completely agree. If you carry a gun, and with that take the responsibilities for it.

With just being safe with my gun, I also know the financial and moral strings that come attached. If I ever have to pull the trigger I will know I'm at peace with my actions, or I wouldn't have drawn my weapon. Now, to go through all of that in your head in nano-seconds, isn't probable. I just know that I'm educated and trained enough that I know when and when it's not justifiable. I know that I would need to be able to articulate my actions, and stand behind them. I guess it comes with my personal belief that I have no feelings towards someone who tries to hurt/kill me. Once the line is drawn, I'm numb.

As far as my house, I'm in a condo. 1 way in, 2 ways out. The second way is a 55ft drop off the balcony/porch. It's me and missus. Tap her, she's in bed, and who ever is in the house is dead. No one has keys, and no one is welcome in my home after I'm asleep. It's simple.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

You claim that a car has no sinister purpose. I can see how it wasn't "designed" to kill, but the matter of fact is, people die more from a car than they do by the gun So? Accidents happen, that's irrelevant. What about knives? Should we all resort to just ripping our foods apart, and burning our ropes in two? Knives are used for TONS of things, but I certainly know that knives were made to CUT, and cutting a human is certainly not something that would be good. Well dur, these are desperate arguments, I'm talking about the primary function of something. How many people do you hear of going on a stabbing rampage through a school? Getting so close to your target makes it much more difficult both physically to do and mentally as you can't disassociate yourself in the same way you could with a gun, almost like a "shoot 'em up" game.

Now, at this point, from your side, you would argue that the knife wasn't invented to kill. But to cut food, or whatever you can come up with. But who's to say that it was only invented for that? What if it was made to kill animals for food?? See above

Your argument that people with cars, and people with guns will kill others when they are impaired.. Your right.. But you don't see anyone calling for cars to be banned for DUI's? Do you? You see them having their licenses taken away. Isn't removing their legal right to drive a car trying to achieve the same affect as removing their actual car itself?.. In the states, they become felons... That means they can't legally buy a gun, own a gun, or posses a gun.

But wait.. Your going to say that it's still easy for them to get a gun right? Your correct, the same way a CRIMINAL, who that felon now is/was, isn't allow to have a gun.. The same way people who have NO licenses, or suspended licenses will still DRIVE a car!

Countless times will a person who's been slapped with multiple DUI's, with no licenses continue to get behind a wheel of a car and continue their destruction. Don't they get imprisoned? They do here.

The difference in this, and is you try and put a specific label on what you view a tool or item's sole purpose and don't take into account any auxiliary reasons, or real life ramifications of said reasons.

The same clause goes for the drunken fight.. I can't recall seeing any "decent" people getting into bar fights and killing another person. Those are decent people. Hell, in my opinion if your in a bar and can't hold your liquor and fight, your not a decent person in my eyes anyways. So you have to be a big drinker and able to fight to be decent to you? I've seen people grab bricks, sticks, bolts in their fists... Those are now weapons.. what would you have to say about those? Their purpose at the time is to cause destruction.. no? Several years ago I was in a pub with my brother watching a football game, we lived nearby the pub but weren't "regulars". My brother was wearing the colours of his team which, during the second half when a load of drunken idiots piled into the place, we discovered wasn't very welcome. I was watching it when I heard a commotion behind as 5 blokes starting assaulting my brother following some verbal taunting. At this point I should state that I'm no fighter, I'm slim and wear glasses, but I tried to shove them off my brother. Within seconds I realised it was pointless so I jumped in to try to very VERY slightly even up the odds. The next thing I know is that I've had a bottle smashed into my head and I'm on the floor wondering if my vision is blurry because I'v lost my glasses - I hadn't. These guys had us well outnumbered and were looking for trouble, if one of them had a gun I dread to think what might have happened.

My brother is much older than me and is the opposite of me in every way and to be honest he is a fighter and pretty much fought his way through the 70's and 80's before seeing a bit of sense. But on the rare occassions if he needs to, he still fights by a code of conduct where you don't use weapons and you stop when the other man is on the floor. There is no code of conduct or sense of morals as soon as a gun is introduced into a heated situation.

In my daily life, I can't decide who's a decent and not so decent person. I'm not in a nanny state and leave it up to others to make sure people don't do drugs, don't lie, don't steal, rape, and otherwise cheat on their taxes. Thats not my job, nor would I care to even attempt to ascertain any of those elements. My job is to protect me and mine. My government doesn't need to tell me "it's all okay" and that I have no right to take a life. I will take care of a life threatening situation if it ever arises, and I have enough moral fiber to know when and how to use it.

Top 5 countries by gun ownership:

1- US
2- Yemen
3- Switzerland
4- Iran
5- Serbia

That's some pretty fine company you're keeping (OK the Swiss are decent enough). I realise I've gone on a while, but hopefully I've made at least one valid point in this lot

 

[mddubya]

Ok, I wasn't going to get in on this thread, but I can't refrain now.

To begin with, if you don't live in the USA then you probably don't understand the mentality here. This country was founded on guns and gun ownership. Remember a little thing called the American Revolution? I'm sure the British members of the forum have heard of it.

Then came the western migration, I'm not saying how the Native Americans was treated was right, or even fair, but without guns, that western movement and expansion would not have been possible.

Then there was little thing called the Civil War, again, not saying it was right or wrong, (it was over more than just slavery BTW) but its kind of hard to have a war without guns.

Then there was a couple of little scraps over in Europe, WWI & WWII, maybe ya'll have heard of them? Both were settled with more than a little assistance from the USA. Ever wonder why the US Army is so good? A lot of it is based on the fact that most young men in America have grown up shooting guns, or had back then.

I gave these examples only to show that gun ownership is hard wired into the American psych. Its always been like this.

So lets play devils advocate now. All of the sudden guns are outlawed. All the registered guns are rounded up and confiscated. Guess what, the criminals still have them. Theirs aren't registered. Never were, never will be. So in effect all you've done is take the guns away from the law abiding citizens. You've declared open season on the good people, told the thieves and rapist to have at it, nobody can defend themselves anymore. If you don't think the crime rate would go up you need to take off the rose colored glasses and drink some coffee, because you're dreaming.

Now, lets take the devils advocate experiment even further. Lets say the Federal Government decides that since the people are no longer armed since we've taken away their right to bear arms, whats to stop us from taking away a few more rights. Lets take away freedom of speech, can't have Rush talking bad about the prez now can we? Who is going to stop us, the fools gave up their right to bear arms. Guess what, there goes our lovely little golf forum too. There goes the majority of your cable channels, only government run propaganda broadcasting ones allowed now. Dayum, this is fun, what can we take away next, oh I know, lets take away their right to vote, Make ourselves Monarchs, or better yet, Kings, no wait, Dictator! Thats the ticket, then I can grow a funny little mustache, make everyone salute me funny.

But Dubya, you're taking it too far. All they want to do is ban assault weapons. Ever heard the expression, give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Over half the guns that were on the last assault weapon ban were no more assault weapons than a sling shot is. In an ideal world, maybe you could ban a select few, but guess what cupcake, the world isn't ideal. Its a known fact that certain political parties that shall remain nameless would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment and outlaw guns completely. Maybe not all the members of that party, but more than enough that I don't trust them as far as I could throw them to ban only Uzi's and AK47's.

But Dubya, even if we do let them take away our guns, they would never take away the rest of our rights. How do you know that? Do you think the good people of Germany knew what Hitler had in mind? Do you think the people of Russia knew exactly what they were getting into when they decided to turn to Communism? I seriously doubt it.

Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled programing.

 

[FATC1TY]

Top 5 countries by gun ownership:

1- US
2- Yemen
3- Switzerland
4- Iran
5- Serbia

That's some pretty fine company you're keeping (OK the Swiss are decent enough). I realise I've gone on a while, but hopefully I've made at least one valid point in this lot

My comment on the being drunk and fighting was read wrong. If you go to a bar and drink, and you can't stay out of trouble, your not a decent person in my eyes. Shit happens, I understand that.. But to make a plea that someone might have a gun and they go to the bar drinking all the time, well, then they aren't a decent person.

In the US, many states don't allow you to carry and partake of alcohol. I can do anything I want at home. If I choose to drink a bunch of beer and run around my house with my gun, I can do so. Would I? Certainly not.

There are laws in place here to limit that kind of activity. But like most laws they get bent and broken, and people do as they choose, which takes it back to the personal responsibility side. We can't be a nanny state and have our government control and dictate to the people and make sure everyone is on even ground, all the time.

Oh, and nice list of countries... Besides the obvious terrorist nations of Iran and the mixed interests of Serbia.. I'm fine with that group.. Infact, if the Swiss are so high on your list, why didn't you care to include the OTHER side of the story of their high list of gun ownerships.

6 million people, 2 million+ guns. Thats a massively high gun ownership.. Did you care to look at their crime stats?

For the sake of an unbiased article, I grabbed you a BBC one. Considering the "anti-gun" stance you all have, this was compelling.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun

And another from the Wall Street Journal

US vs. Switzerland Gun Laws

And while your trying to avoid the "other side" of your media, check this out.. Really, just read it.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome: Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S. - Reason Magazine

Just incase you miss some good parts, I'll help!

"Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it."




Pretty crazy since you guys banned it all, how do they get them!?



They took your right to protect yourself and your neighbors. They tell you to walk away and ignore a crime.. Wait for the police to come clean it up?



Do you see where this is all going? The Swiss have plenty of firepower, infact everyone of those people are TRAINED to use it and they have kids around that have no qualms about being with guns. Small, small amounts of crime, and plenty of guns.


England, plenty of crime, rising crime figures, crime committed with guns too! Banned the guns, told people to sit down, and take whatever a criminal gives them. The criminals still have the guns, and you do not. How is that fair? You mentioned previous wanting to help your brother out in a fight.. You worried that you were outnumbered and didn't have the fight on your side... It's no different than being asleep in your home and some thugs parade into your home.. You have no chance, none.. Perhaps you might have had a chance if you can protect yourself.

 

[fisher]

Easily the best thread I've read on here. Its very interesting to read the views of people from countries that don't have the freedom and liberty we have.

 

[FATC1TY]

Easily the best thread I've read on here. Its very interesting to read the views of people from countries that don't have the freedom and liberty we have.

I agree. It's really interesting to see the cultural differences that divide the opinions on things.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

Honestly now Dubya, your reply is the first time I've ever conceded ground on such a debate so well done there. I've never considered the historical association with guns which could be embedded within the psyche and I've got to admit that it is a compelling argument.

Over here there has been an issue with knife crime, so the police offered amnesty and put disposal points all over the place in areas of high knife crime rates. They had quite a good result and now they know they can concentrate on the more hardened criminals. Would this not apply to the "devil's advocate" scenario you mentioned? At first the bad guys would have all the guns, but the supply chain would dry up and the police could concentrate on targetting the now illegal guns? In maybe one generation guns could be gone (well as good as)

 

[FATC1TY]

Englishgolfer... Did you read any of those links I posted, or was it too much?


As far as "knife turn in" points.. Rather silly.. Who the hell is going to turn in a knife? I don't get it... Your normal steak knife will do as much damage as a grandfathers pocket knife. It's all a sharp blade used to cut when you narrow it down... I don't understand it?

I've seen in inner cities in the US, where they do "gun trade in" programs. They offer people to turn in their guns, for gift cards.. Bring in a rifle and get $50 gift card to somewhere.. Point is.. only the people who stole guns, or had something illegal turned them in. The few that did were people that lived in ghettos, and were in poverty. It was easy to steal a gun, get money for it, and steal another later.

They ran the numbers on most of the guns turned in.. Most were reported stolen. Ironic, huh?

 

[xamilo]

As far as "knife turn in" points.. Rather silly.. Who the hell is going to turn in a knife? I don't get it... Your normal steak knife will do as much damage as a grandfathers pocket knife. It's all a sharp blade used to cut when you narrow it down... I don't understand it?

My kitchen cooking knife is made by the same Japanese forging family who made the Katana and Iaido swords I own.

Does that give my kitchen "Terrorist Vintage"?

 

[FATC1TY]

My kitchen cooking knife is made by the same Japanese forging family who made the Katana and Iaido swords I own.

Does that give my kitchen "Terrorist Vintage"?

Your lucky you can cut with a knife in the kitchen.. Englishgolfer has to use spoons to cut his food since he turned all his in!

 

[Youngun5]

YouTube - Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion