The Great Gun Debate

[eclark53520]

Also Please remind me where I said this. I seem to recall mentioning about there being knife crime here and amnesty points, for the life of me I can't remember linking gun number reduction to knife crime increases though.

Alright, you never said the words "you have no right to protect yourself."

However, if guns magically disappeared. A guy breaks into my house with a knife, i pull a knife on him and kill him. Is that right? According to you, no. If its not right to kill an intruder/attacker with a gun, it should not be right to do so with any type of weapon including my fists right? Even though he is attempting to kill me?

So what do i do? Ask him to please leave my property? Please do not take my property? Offer him a cup of tea?

Just to be clear, from your post the thread you linked to before, post number 67, you explained that the majority of 'the public' are criminals, so according to you, i should be 'paranoid' that a criminal will enter my home(if the majority are criminals odds are quite good). So this is a valid question as to how to protect myself.

I am unsure of how you would suggest i handle this situation.

 

[BigJim13]

First of all, i appreciate you not calling my manhood into question.

Fully automatic weapons as of right now are prohibitively expensive to anyone short of a 6+ digit income. The cheapest gun you can get in fully auto would be something like an uzi and that is running 8k+ and its shooting a very small round, horribly inconsistent in function and accuracy. Also, to legally obtain anything fully automatic, you must submit papers to the government with local LEO sign off and fingerprints along with $200. At that point you wait about 4-6 months sometimes more to get approved to buy the weapon. During that time, the ATF is going through your background with a fine tooth comb. After you obtain the weapon, there are extremely strict laws about how it is stored, transported, and used. This is also true for suppressors, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns.

Who thinks the drug dealers or other people who are going to commit crimes with these weapons are going to go about the 'legal' way of obtaining these firearms?

I agree, give an inch, they take a mile. I take them banning guns just like if they started making peaceable assembly illegal, or tightening our freedom of speech.

The answer is this, the laws are already in place to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have access to them. The criminals are truly the only problem here. Eliminate the criminals, eliminate the problem, but we all know its impossible to incarcerate all criminals, its just logistically impossible.

That's good to know about all the hoops you have to jump through to get an automatic weapon. I didn't know about the process involved. All I have ever bought is a hunting rifle.

I hope you didn't take any of my previous posts as calling your manhood into question or anybody else's for that matter, that was not my intent. I just enjoy a good debate over something with more substance than Blades vs. Cavities...

 

[eclark53520]

That's good to know about all the hoops you have to jump through to get an automatic weapon. I didn't know about the process involved. All I have ever bought is a hunting rifle.

I hope you didn't take any of my previous posts as calling your manhood into question or anybody else's for that matter, that was not my intent. I just enjoy a good debate over something with more substance than Blades vs. Cavities...

Not at all bigjim, although your name implies...lol

That comment was just a quick stab at English golfer, and probably in bad taste.

You are right, it is actually quite difficult to get your hands on a automatic weapon. The ONLY way to obtain one legally is to have a 100% clean background. Even a disorderly conduct ticket can get your application denied.

 

[three puttz]

I personally do not care strongly enough one way or the other to get very excited about this issue, and I see validity in both sides of the argument from reading through this thread.

But I'll just add the following two points that are simply my personal views on the subject

1 - I think guns often provide owners the "feeling" of safety rather than actual safety. Bottom line, unless you somehow make it a permanent "always at the ready" part of your body, it likely won't prevent you from becoming a victim of violent crime.

2 - If someone chooses to own a gun it should come with TREMENDOUS responsibility, even moreso than it currently does. If all gun-related crime sentences were multiplied by five - it might change some opinions. Casual gun-ownership might be re-examined with only the most die-hard still feeling the need, and criminal gun-ownership might decrease if a simple illegal carry conviction carried a minimum 5 year sentence.

Final note - kudos to nearly all posters for remaining mature and respectful in discussing a potentially volatile subject

 

[JEFF4i]

FAT, of course you are paranoid. Most gun-owners are paranoid to a degree, especially those that have them for self-defense.

You see the logical correlation, yes? Not that there is anything wrong with it, there isn't, but an understanding of terms is a good thing.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

Alright, you never said the words "you have no right to protect yourself." Thank goodness for that, it's hard enough fighting my own corner here without shooting myself in the foot (so to speak) with clangers like that!

....I am unsure of how you would suggest i handle this situation.

It always seems to be 'to the death' with you, the term 'reasonable force' is used over here, what's wrong with that?

 

[EnglishGolfer]

That comment was just a quick stab at English golfer, and probably in bad taste.

Nah, fair's fair, I overstepped the mark. Quits?

 

[eclark53520]

It always seems to be 'to the death' with you, the term 'reasonable force' is used over here, what's wrong with that?

Alright, so i should risk my life to try to save the life of a criminal.

This does not sound like a reasonable suggestion to me. He just invaded my home. He just violated me in the worst possible way. Yet i am supposed to sit by in idle and wait for this guy to decide what to do with me? Or attempt to hold him down or lock him in a room while police show up eventually?

This is definitely one way to go about it, but why should this be the only way? Why should this criminal be allowed more rights than he allowed me?

 

[eclark53520]

FAT, of course you are paranoid. Most gun-owners are paranoid to a degree, especially those that have them for self-defense.

You see the logical correlation, yes? Not that there is anything wrong with it, there isn't, but an understanding of terms is a good thing.

I'm not sure i agree. Paranoia is a baseless or excessive suspition of the malice of others. I see stories every day about home invasions and murders...then how is my being prepared paranoia?

I don't find my suspicion of others baseless nor excessive due to the facts that crime is prevalent in our society.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

Alright, so i should risk my life to try to save the life of a criminal.

This does not sound like a reasonable suggestion to me. He just invaded my home. He just violated me in the worst possible way. Yet i am supposed to sit by in idle and wait for this guy to decide what to do with me? Or attempt to hold him down or lock him in a room while police show up eventually?

This is definitely one way to go about it, but why should this be the only way? Why should this criminal be allowed more rights than he allowed me?

Obvioulsy the amount of force deemed reasonable changes with the situation. If a homeless 13 year old kid breaks in to your house looking for something he can sell quickly to get money for food, what then?

What if a 20 year old homeless person breaks in and you knock him out, do you still shoot him to make sure?

I'm a little concerned what your reply might be here, feel free to pleasantly surprise me.

 

[Slingblade61]

When some one breaks into your home you shoot first and ask questions later.

I am reminded of a case here a couple of years ago where two thugs broke into a home, beat up the father and left him in the basement, raped the mother and both daughters, then poured gas on them and lit them on fire.

The father survived.

Determining motive is for the police. Although in the case of a 13 year old I think I could knock him down and sit on him until the police arrive.

 

[eclark53520]

Obvioulsy the amount of force deemed reasonable changes with the situation. If a homeless 13 year old kid breaks in to your house looking for something he can sell quickly to get money for food, what then?

What if a 20 year old homeless person breaks in and you knock him out, do you still shoot him to make sure?

I'm a little concerned what your reply might be here, feel free to pleasantly surprise me.

So here is my problem with the reasonable force approach to the home invasion scenario.

When this is the approach deemed to be used, i have to in the dark(most likely), with a massive adrenaline dump, figure out who is in my house, why they are in my house, what their intentions are, and how to deal with them.(all hopefully before they kill me/my family)

Then, after the deal is done, the police show up, they get all day to calmly go through tons of evidence i did not have access to at the time, and figure out the real situation.

So lets say some homeless guy(its cold here so they wear lots of clothing and cover their faces with normally dark clothing as it attracts heat from the sun breaks into my home. He is in my kitchen going through my food when i show up at the doorway he gets scared, disorientated and runs towards me(as there is only one way out of the kitchen). This guy is heavily dressed from head to toe in black, is in my house, and is running towards me quickly. I have to act NOW....so i protect myself, lets say i kill the man.

The cops come in and realize the true situation and arrest me. They run stories in the local paper, "homeowner kills local homeless man looking for some food"...

Conversely, a rapist enters my home, dressed head to toe in black, just like the homeless man. Goes into the kitchen as he is disorientated in a house he doesn't know. I meet him in the doorway, he runs at me. Lets say i determine this man to be a non-threat. He then kills me/detains me, rapes my wife and daughter.

Now, there are the two other situations in this. Where i let he homeless guy go, and kill the known rapist. Thats a %50 chance of being right, and in my recollection, thats a failed test my friend. Russian roulette has better odds than that.

The reasonable force system is flawed as far as i am concerned. Flawed in a way that is a lose lose situation for the home owner.


My idea is a castle doctrine. Anybody deemed to be in your house that does not belong there you are given full rights under the law to use deadly force. Now i have the option that if i have gathered enough information to determine that this is a 13 year old homeless child looking for food, i can act accordingly, however, i am not held responsible for not having information there is no way i could possibly get.

This castle doctrine has another effect. Criminals know about it. They KNOW if they enter a house, the homeowner knows they have full rights to shoot intruders. In the reasonable force approach, criminals know that 1, if they do not threaten a life, they shouldn't be attacked...so they should technically be able to without much resistance take what they want.

Honestly, there is NO reason, absolutely NONE, to enter another person's home uninvited. I don't care if you are homeless/starving or otherwise. Knock, i would be willing to help out anyone coming to my door asking respectfully for help. Break into my house however, i am not so kind.

 

[FATC1TY]

Firstly for Every Switzerland there are an Iran and a Serbia. If the U.S. was like Switzerland this debate probably wouldn't exist, but it isn't. Dreadful, horrible things have happened over there that have made international news following deaths of lots of innocent people due to normal every day folk going on a rampage for one reason or another.

No doubt it would be a long process to significantly reduce the number of guns on the streets, it would have to become a priority set by the powers that be to have any chance, but the only way it is impossible is if it isn't attempted and with attitudes like yours this will be the case. (that's sounds like I'm trying to insult you there, I'm not, I'm just going off what you said earlier)

I understand what your saying but the basis of your whole arguement is that we should get rid of guns, period. You feel that they are ONLY there to kill people, and no one should be taking any lives.

Guns will not ever, ever, ever go away. It's just not ever going to happen. Not in ANYONES lifetime. That is a reality that needs to be reminded to many anti-gunners. Guns aren't going to just dry up. It's a mega-billion dollar market across the entire globe, and for numerous countries.

You keep claiming to get guns off the streets.. Point is, everything will trickle to the streets. Proverty and socio-economic regions that are in terrible shape will always resort to the crime side. They will always get the guns, the drugs, the money and they live their life to a different moral standard.

You insist that removing guns from the streets starts from removing them from the upper end. While it's true in most cases, studies like many of the links posted in this thread, point that gun reduction does not mean crime reduction.

Look up the crime/murder stats for Washington, DC. A very anti-gun place. So against it, you couldn't even OWN a gun there. How are all those people dying by the gun, when the guns are removed? Explain that to me? Explain how life are saved, because guns are gone? They aren't!!

Your wanting to save human life, I do too. Innocent people don't need to die. People just out and about don't need to die by a stray bullet. The same goes for people getting robbed and raped and murdered for their belongings. People need defense, and people can't defend once you take away that right.

Your whole scheme is akin to taking away cars from a 100 mile radius of bars. So to keep people from driving drunk. It's asinine to do that, but to remove the "tool" from the "crime" it's no different than asking to get rid of guns to reduce the murders. You only make it a hassle for the responsible people who can drive, drink in moderation, and be able to go home without being illegally impaired. Same goes for gun ownership.

But get it through your head, that regardless of trying to keep them off the streets, guns will never go away. England doesn't allow handguns, but where do they come from? Everyone that doesn't need a gun has one, and those that need them can't have them. The law doesn't apply to the shit of society. It applies to you and I, who follow the laws, and live with morals.

There is no good answer to fix it all, and end it all.

 

[FATC1TY]

Obvioulsy the amount of force deemed reasonable changes with the situation. If a homeless 13 year old kid breaks in to your house looking for something he can sell quickly to get money for food, what then?

What if a 20 year old homeless person breaks in and you knock him out, do you still shoot him to make sure?

I'm a little concerned what your reply might be here, feel free to pleasantly surprise me.

If a homeless 13 year old broke into my house, he'd find himself on the bad end of my semi-automatic handgun. I won't shoot immediately, because I'm trained to identify my target before I shoot. If he turns and runs, then all is well. If he's lunges at me, attempts to throw something at me, or reaches in his jacket or pants, he's going to catch 2 rounds to his center mass. I'm not taking a chance. I'm sure there are another 200 Million other scenarios, but for simplicitys sake.

If a 20 year old breaks in, and attempts harm to me, he's getting shot. Plain and simple. He's no different than the 13 year old homeless boy. Age doesn't matter to me, and the crime is no different. Crime is crime. If I'm fearing for my life, they will be shot. If they die, they die, if they don't then they get a good story to tell while they are in jail.

If someone gets knocked out, they aren't a threat to me. I wouldn't shoot. If they are running out of my house, I will not shoot. If they are staring at me through the glass door, I will not shoot. They might get a gun pointed at them. I will only use deadly force when my life is in danger. Life and limb.

I also live in a state that says Shoot first, ask later. I have a right to use deadly force if someone breaks into my home. It could be a homeless woman who wants to leave me some flowers she picked. I don't know anyones intentions, and don't care. Unlawful entry into my home, especially at a time when I might be sleeping, will result in a firearm of some kind being pointed at you. That doesn't automatically mean I will shoot. Sometimes just the threat of being shot will end a crime.


So lemme ask you English.. Do you trust that police have guns? I'm extremely curious of your answer.

 

[Fourputt]

Its not about need. 90% of people who own 4x4 trucks do not need them, most people do not need a car that goes any faster than about 80mph...yet even the cheapest econobox goes in excess of 100mph...

Imagine what this country would be like if the government got to decide what we needed...

Honestly i believe that given the resources(money) any civilian should be able to own anything the military is able to. Do remember that the 2nd amendment is mainly there to protect the people of this country from the government.

My only argument against this is that 4x4's are not designed to kill. And to another earlier post, swimming pools are not designed to kill. Yes accidents happen... you can fall down the stairs and die. But guns were invented solely for the purpose of killing. They still exist only for that purpose. Those who punch paper with them... why are you doing it? So you can hit what you aim at? And that makes you a more efficient killer when you do start shooting at something other than a target. At least it does if you aren't so scared that all of the practice goes out the window when someone shoots back at you.

Yes there are other ways to kill if you really want to do it, but it's more difficult to accomplish. Any idiot can pick up a gun and shoot it. And then when he gets pissed off enough walk into a store or office and start blasting away... unlikely that he could do that sort of damage by ramming the store with a Durango. More likely just to put himself in the hospital. So that argument just doesn't wash.

Guns are dangerous in the hands of those who understand them and even more dangerous in the hands of those who don't. Or don't care. I've lived around guns most of my life in the Rocky Mountain west, Montana and Colorado. I've hunted, I still own a pistol. which I keep here in the house. I'm not opposed to guns, only to the insanity that goes with advocating the unlimited legality of fully automatic assault rifles, and so much more that it's just nuts.

I'm also opposed to the general public carrying concealed weapons. Why does it need to be hidden? You want to carry a weapon... strap on a gunbelt and holster and wear it on your hip in plain sight. Still perfectly legal in much of the west, and without a permit too.

Home defense?? It's been proven that the most effect weapon for that is a shotgun. Doesn't require perfect aim, effective even in very low light, short range means that you are less likely to shoot through the wall and kill a passerby, or your neighbor next door in his bed. Give me a 12 gauge pump with a 5 shot mag and 00 buck and I'll be a lot more effective at protecting my family than anyone with an AR-15.

Defense of freedom? Really.... you think that a few radical NRA types can stand against a trained military force with modern weaponry? That's ludicrous. If that was truly a threat we would be as helpless as if we had no firearms at all. The militia of the Constitution is these days accomplished by the existence of the various reserve forces, not by armed citizens.

So you can argue as you like, but mostly gun aficionados simply want unlimited access to anything they can get their hands on. They temper it with platitudes like defense of freedom, home and family, yet those arguments just don't wash, because there are more effective ways of accomplishing those goals. In the end, they want unrestricted access to weapons just for it's own sake, and no amount of argument can change that sort of mindset.