If you feel threatened, ESPECIALLY in a life and death situation, you have every right to use any means necessary to protect yourself.
But you made it seem like you wanted to go kill the guy AFTER all of that happened. I don't care what you went through, but you shouldn't want to do that, ever.
Well you don't turn the anger off right now, just because the immediate danger is over. I do some meditation so I'm pretty good at watching my reactions to life and this kind of surprised me. Anger is a powerful emotion and if I can be engulfed in it, I can see others with less control and a handy handgun, using it.
I'm neither pro or anti gun ownership...I'm anti-ban. All thats heard, as of late is ban this, ban that...when does it end? Has the age of common sense come and gone? Everything from drive-thrus to cell phones to guns. Just like the phrase "seatbelts save lives", wheres the common sense in that? Seatbelts (I do wear mine, mind you) do nothing more than hold you in your vehicle upon a lapse of attention or common sense from either you and the other driver or ditch.
Guns don't kill people, the operators of these weapons make the choice to kill. Lack of common sense and reason again. I often-times wonder when it's going to end. A
ban does nothing more than take weapons from the masses and produces a large number of defenceless people...The old saying, "bringing a knife to a gunfight"
And you still haven't explained why any law-abiding citizen shouldn't own a gun because so idiot goes and kills someone else with the handgun he got for the surplus store the week before. I didn't break the law. You did.
I don't have to explain it because I never said a law-abiding citizen shouldn't own a gun.
The point is, I'm a law-abiding citizen but that could change pretty quickly if I was sufficiently angry or liquored or both. If I have a pistol in my belt, I'm considerably more dangerous. The same can be said for anyone else. If I've got a Louisville Slugger instead of a Smith&Wesson, I'm going to have a much harder time clipping my enemies. The way I read it, your claim was that "if you want to kill somebody, you'll do it even if you don't have a gun". I might still try, but I won't be as efficient or successful.
Well you don't turn the anger off right now, just because the immediate danger is over. I do some meditation so I'm pretty good at watching my reactions to life and this kind of surprised me. Anger is a powerful emotion and if I can be engulfed in it, I can see others with less control and a handy handgun, using it.
I don't.
Your problem if you can't control yourself. I shouldn't suffer as a result.
I don't have to explain it because I never said a law-abiding citizen shouldn't own a gun.
The point is, I'm a law-abiding citizen but that could change pretty quickly if I was sufficiently angry or liquored or both. If I have a pistol in my belt, I'm considerably more dangerous. The same can be said for anyone else. If I've got a Louisville Slugger instead of a Smith&Wesson, I'm going to have a much harder time clipping my enemies. The way I read it, your claim was that "if you want to kill somebody, you'll do it even if you don't have a gun". I might still try, but I won't be as efficient or successful.
Again, your problem if you're stupid enough to carry a firearm around when you go drinking. Most people I know with CCW permits, leave their gun at home when they go out for a few drinks.
There is a moral responsibility that goes along with owning a gun. I shouldn't suffer because some idiot goes out, gets drunk, takes his gun and starts shooting up a bar. Nor should I suffer because Vulcan thinks that anger is a strong emotion, and most people can't control themselves and want to go kill people because they're angry.
Again, your problem if you're stupid enough to carry a firearm around when you go drinking.
Aah, but it's not only my problem. It's everyone's problem. My own personal safety is the least of my worries if I'm a mean drunk and I legally own a handgun.
Bla bla bla. It seems clear to me that Americans are allowed, under the Constitution, to have a handgun in their house. It's right there on the piece of paper. I'm no expert but it looks pretty straightforward to me.
The nonsensical blathering I'm involved in here is just an (apparently vain) attempt to demonstrate that having a handgun close at, umm, hand, is more dangerous than not having one. It can't be compared to a swimming pool or a meat cleaver. If some guy snaps and has a gun, he's bad news. If the same guy snaps and has a crowbar he's not exactly good news, but he's better news than the guy with the gun.
Am I wrong? I know I'd rather meet the guy with the crowbar.
Your problem if you can't control yourself. I shouldn't suffer as a result.
Well as it stands I did control myself but if I had a gun handy, who knows and like I said I certainly had provocation but I have no wish to have society return to the American wild west where everybody took the law into their own hands. The police are there for a reason and if they can't do the job, it's time to make changes with them, not arm the citizenry. This whole business of arming the citizens for self protection seems like a degrading of society. I thought we were supposed to get more civilized and corny as it sounds, strive for peace.
Uh, a know it all who has never been angry because in my book when you're angry you're not wholly in control.
Be careful you don't get hoisted on your own petard but I do wish you well.
Aah, but it's not only my problem. It's everyone's problem. My own personal safety is the least of my worries if I'm a mean drunk and I legally own a handgun.
Your loss. In the US, if you're mean drunk, acting like an idiot waving your gun around, there are people who wouldn't hesitate to shoot you.
And the only way you can carry a handgun around is with a CCW permit. Again, most people who have CCW permits probably know the moral responsibility that goes along with owning a handgun. And I'm positive that they train to use the firearm too. Not exactly the 'idiot' that goes out and gets drunk then starts shooting up the pub.
Quote:
Am I wrong? I know I'd rather meet the guy with the crowbar.
Sure. And I'd rather have a gun when a guy comes after me with a crowbar.
Well as it stands I did control myself but if I had a gun handy, who knows and like I said I certainly had provocation but I have no wish to have society return to the American wild west where everybody took the law into their own hands. The police are there for a reason and if they can't do the job, it's time to make changes with them, not arm the citizenry. This whole business of arming the citizens for self protection seems like a degrading of society. I thought we were supposed to get more civilized and corny as it sounds, strive for peace.
Uh, a know it all who has never been angry because in my book when you're angry you're not wholly in control.
Be careful you don't get hoisted on your own petard but I do wish you well.
This is NOT at all like the wild west, and such a comparison is ridiculous to make. All the SCOTUS did was rule that people had the right to keep guns in their own home for personal safety.
Your logic makes absolutely no sense. Sure, the police ARE supposed to protect civilians. But they can't stop crime before it happens. In other words, they can't be there to stop someone from breaking into your home. Therefore to say that law-abiding citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves is sheer stupidity.
They're not breaking any laws.
And nobody is 'arming' the citizens. You're just using a hyperbole to try and make a point that has absolutely no bearing on the ruling.
