About Guns

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

I agree that a shotgun can be as effective if not moreso for home defense, in most situations. I choose to have options when someone decides that my house is the one to try tonight. Close quarters vs. distance, etc.

There is already a mandatory minimum of 7 years (I believe, could be 9.) for using a gun in the commission of a crime. That doesn't seem to be scaring many gangsters off. Punishments for simply possessing one would be overkill, IMO. I guess I'm coming from the side that knows most handgun owners are responsible, and respectable people. The folks that don't store their guns securely are making their own bed, and may face the consequences. I would have no issue with fining or charging folks that don't securely store their firearms, I just think it would be a tough law to enforce.

Handguns are made for killing people if the threat presents itself, except for mine. It's made for killing big furry animals.





This argument seems to be more of a personal choice vs. greater good discussion, and that's fine. I'm a firm believer in the saying "Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

As I've stated in previous threads about the same subject, this discussion is like abortion, religion, etc. You're likely not ever going to change someone's mind one way or the other, and that's OK.

Handguns are never going to go away completely. I could give a multitude of examples of people protecting their lives and property with the use of a firearm. I'm afraid someone would claim I was just shilling for the NRA, of which I'm not a member.

Prohibition of anything in the U.S. just creates an underground market for it. You just need to look at alcohol early in the 20th century for that, or the illegal drug trade today. I'd much rather have the industry be taxed and regulated.

As I've said before, I respect everyone's opinion on the subject. I hope someone's personal decision whether to own one or not doesn't come back to bite them. Whether that is owning one which ends up in the wrong hands, or not owning one and being at the mercy of someone who does. There are legitimate concerns associated with each viewpoint.

Not to mention, in order for your shot gun to be effective in close quarters like your home, you would need a very short barrel, thus, again it would be illegal.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

yes you are right .. however, this is how i choose to balance my personal distaste for guns and what they are capable of and your right to own them.

i feel the same way about hard core drugs as well. i would rather use my own judgement and stay away from you then to see the government make that decision for me.

You have every right to decide that your child shouldn't be in a house with guns. In fact, my son was in kindergarten and wanted friends over and I felt it was important to let parents know there was a gun in my house. I encountered two different moms who didn't want their kids in a house with a gun. I invited them to come over and see how they were stored. In my bedroom there were two closets. In one closet is a small locker mounted up toward the ceiling, with a combination lock. In the other closet is another one mounted the same with with another combination lock. There was no way any kid was getting into either of those lockers. Once they saw how the guns were stored they had no problem. I would never take a gun out when kids were around. I've never had anyone actually refuse to have their kids in my house because of my gun. I think rather than refuse to allow your child in a house with a gun, you would be better off seeing how responsible the gun owner is. The fact of the matter is, at any time your child could be in a house with a gun, not everyone is going to disclose that to you. My kids have too many friends who's parents are police officers. I know those houses have guns in them, I just want to make sure they're stored responsibly.

[octothorp]

I have to question any argument that uses 30-year-old data as its primary source; surely studies have been done since then?

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/Ma...y_control.html

This study, for example, comes from 2002, is also from Harvard, and shows a direct correlation between gun ownership and total violent deaths. Now granted, it's looking specifically at incidents involving children (accidents, suicides, and murders). If the original argument and stats were to carry over, you'd expect that as gun prevalence decreased and gun-related violence decreased, non-gun-related violent crime would increase. But this is not the case; non-gun violence does not increase, which refutes the idea that someone will turn to other implements when they do not have access to firearms.

edit: I just noticed this quote which actually speaks to the same sorts of conclusions that the first post makes:

"According to Miller, the danger of guns is not that they somehow cause people to act more violently--it is simply that people will be far more successful at killing themselves or someone else with a gun. "We see this in international studies," he pointed out. Forty percent of U.S. households own guns, and American children are far more likely to die from firearms than children in other industrialized countries. However, the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. is not much different from that in other countries. "What distinguishes the U.S. is its extremely high level of lethal violence," Miller said. "That's because guns turn assaults into deadly assaults, arguments into deadly arguments.""

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I have to question any argument that uses 30-year-old data as its primary source; surely studies have been done since then?

http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/Ma...y_control.html

This study, for example, comes from 2002, is also from Harvard, and shows a direct correlation between gun ownership and total violent deaths. Now granted, it's looking specifically at incidents involving children (accidents, suicides, and murders). If the original argument and stats were to carry over, you'd expect that as gun prevalence decreased and gun-related violence decreased, non-gun-related violent crime would increase. But this is not the case; non-gun violence does not increase, which refutes the idea that someone will turn to other implements when they do not have access to firearms.

I didn't read your link but if the study was just on children, then i could understand why the incedents of violence with other objects did not increase as most gun incidents involving children are accidental due to improper storage of firearms.

But you are right, the author of the original post should have used more recent data to support his arguement.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

Prohibition of anything in the U.S. just creates an underground market for it. You just need to look at alcohol early in the 20th century for that, or the illegal drug trade today. I'd much rather have the industry be taxed and regulated.

If that's the case why prohibit things like child pornography? After all, there's an underground market for it. Would you rather it be taxed and regulated?

To be serious here though, banning things like alcohol and drugs are a lot different then guns. Anyone can make alcohol or weed. It is easy to setup a grow op or a still. It is not easy to setup a factory to build guns and ammunition.

As well, with alcohol you have a customer base that makes purchases on a regular basis. Selling guns, you'll have a hard time finding repeat customers. How many people would really be buying guns on a regular basis?

[Rubber Ducky]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

And you know the person behind you does not have a hand gun how? Didn't 4 people get shoot up on Jan 1? Do you think those people at the dinner had the same mentality as you?

The shooting at the Vietnamese restaurant was targeted. Gang-related. Not some hothead in a movie theatre angry because some family was making too much noise during the movie.

You're right - I don't know that the guy behind me in the theatre doesn't have a gun. But with strict gun laws here, I feel much more comfortable about it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Rubber Ducky

The shooting at the Vietnamese restaurant was targeted. Gang-related. Not some hothead in a movie theatre angry because some family was making too much noise during the movie.

You're right - I don't know that the guy behind me in the theatre doesn't have a gun. But with strict gun laws here, I feel much more comfortable about it.

You are in some kind of false sense of security. Strict gun laws do not mean criminals do not have guns. For all you know the dude in the article belonged to some kind of organized crime family. There is really no information at all about that person. Whats the dif if you were sitting next to a gang member and another gang member game into the theater and started blasting? No dif.

If you only knew how many guns were out in the criminal world and how easy it is to actually get one.

[tussery]

I am the opposite of everyone here. Due to the lax laws and concealed carry options in Texas I actually feel safer knowing there are more law abiding gun owners like me. Call me crazy all you want but the places I feel the most paranoid and unsafe are schools and businesses that have posted 30.06's. My opinion is the invention of the gun can not be reversed and to me it is much better to embrace it rather than be afraid of it. I will take my chances with my life in a gun toting country, I am much more likely to win the lottery tomorrow than getting shot by a firearm.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by tussery

I am the opposite of everyone here. Due to the lax laws and concealed carry options in Texas I actually feel safer knowing there are more law abiding gun owners like me. Call me crazy all you want but the places I feel the most paranoid and unsafe are schools and businesses that have posted 30.06's. My opinion is the invention of the gun can not be reversed and to me it is much better to embrace it rather than be afraid of it. I will take my chances with my life in a gun toting country, I am much more likely to win the lottery tomorrow than getting shot by a firearm.

Maybe it's because I've been sheltered living in Canada my whole life, and I do understand your reasoning, but man, I can't get my head around this post, lol. That's a world I hope I never know, where the majority of citizens feel safer with guns than without.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

That is such a load of crap. A gun has many other uses other than for killing.

Pistol whipping a homeboy? Starting gun for the 100m final? Scare crows from a corn field? I am sure there are many others but the main use for a gun is to kill. Lets not kid ourselves.

To be fair you can seperate guns into 2 categories: hunting and protection. Hunting I am all for and support. Protection I am against.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by tussery

I am the opposite of everyone here. Due to the lax laws and concealed carry options in Texas I actually feel safer knowing there are more law abiding gun owners like me. Call me crazy all you want but the places I feel the most paranoid and unsafe are schools and businesses that have posted 30.06's. My opinion is the invention of the gun can not be reversed and to me it is much better to embrace it rather than be afraid of it. I will take my chances with my life in a gun toting country, I am much more likely to win the lottery tomorrow than getting shot by a firearm.

In the USA that mentality probably holds true, in some areas more than others. In Canada though that's obsurd. It's funny how the two countries are so close on most issues but so far apart on this issue.

God Bless the US 2nd ammendment!! (green bolded).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Pistol whipping a homeboy? Starting gun for the 100m final? Scare crows from a corn field? I am sure there are many others but the main use for a gun is to kill. Lets not kid ourselves.

To be fair you can seperate guns into 2 categories: hunting and protection. Hunting I am all for and support. Protection I am against.

OMG, I can't believe people. What about swords? You can say their original intent was for the destuction of people, now, not so much. Many people collect swords just to have and show. Just because you think that guns only purpose is to kill doesn't make it so.

Question, do police possess guns to kill people?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

That is such a load of crap. A gun has many other uses other than for killing.

Oh for sure. Intimidation, robbery, assault, movie prop, penis enlarger, "threat neutralizer", attempted murder, spend a sunday afternoon cleaning it, look tough, shoot beer cans from porch, commit suicide, get basketball off roof, rap music videos, street cred, suicide by cop, take out knee caps, make expensive gun case useful, something to spend money on, make people stop talking during movie, etc.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Question, do police possess guns to kill people?

I would suggest they posssess them not only to protect themselves from potential deadly situations they are forced to put themselves in as a part of their job, but also to protect me so i don't need to own a gun myself.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I would suggest they posssess them not only to protect themselves from potential deadly situations they are forced to put themselves in as a part of their job, but also to protect me so i don't need to own a gun myself.

You didn't answer the question.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Question, do police possess guns to kill people?

Ultimately, yes. The implicit threat of the gun has to have some legitimacy or they are useless - if you have a gun and are not willing to shoot it if necessary, it is of limited efficacy.

That being said, I'm perfectly happy with the police having guns so that I don't have to have one.

[Thor]

I'm personally fine with gun ownership, all I ask is that its mandatory to take a quality gun course before you get a license.

[tussery]

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5-0-screen.pdf

Something for your viewing pleasure. Just something to throw out there.

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by jammies

Ultimately, yes. The implicit threat of the gun has to have some legitimacy or they are useless - if you have a gun and are not willing to shoot it if necessary, it is of limited efficacy.

That being said, I'm perfectly happy with the police having guns so that I don't have to have one.

This is the one thing that concerns/confuses me:

How often are the police on scene as a crime is being committed? Seriously???

I would say almost never, so if someone is relying on the police to protect them in the event of a violent crime, they are going to be sorely disappointed.

What is the solution to this? Pay for a cop to be stationed on every corner? That would be great, but no one is willing to pay for that luxury.

I would like to think that an individual would want to be able to defend themselves or their family in a time of need and not stand idly by while they get raped and pillaged by some tweaker/felon out on parole from a weak justice system.

Crimes happen in seconds, police respond in minutes.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

OMG, I can't believe people. What about swords? You can say their original intent was for the destuction of people, now, not so much. Many people collect swords just to have and show. Just because you think that guns only purpose is to kill doesn't make it so.

Question, do police possess guns to kill people?

I am sure many folks collect guns similar to swords but I am guessing that's a small number. Again, don't kid yourself about the real purpose of guns. I own 2 guns with the purpose of hunting while the other portion own guns for protection. I personally don't own any guns with the intent of protection and think it's nonsense in Canada. Either way my guns are to kill (bucks, elk etc.), the others are to kill (humans) whether with intent or self defence. A small portion is for collecting/antiques, scaring crows from a corn field, a starting gun for a marathon etc.

As for police, it falls under the 2 categories I suggest which is protection and if used is intended to kill.