An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)

[MoganFreeman]

I am in favor of rational, reasonable, well-intentioned people owning guns, but feel most people are too emotional, scared or just plan stupid to own and operate firearms.

So I am on the fence about this issue.

 

[CapnGod]

Controversial? Meh, perhaps. I sympathize with the sentiment, I suppose, and it's a shame, but I come first. I don't know who is breaking in. Now, I'd like not to shoot someone, and if, upon hearing me rack a shell into the chamber, they decide to leave, fantastic. I really don't WANT to kill anyone. I'd rather they never broke the law or into my house. I'd rather they leave me and mine alone. If threatened, though, I'd rather be able to respond in kind. And if that means my 12ga mag, so be it.

This is where the problem lies in the legislation, if it is written how it has been expressed in this thread; that you can shoot to kill anyone in your house. You should have to prove in court that you used reasonable force because you thought your or your families life was in danger. E.G. they were in one of your bedrooms, they were also armed, they threatened you, etc

They were in my house. They were illegally there. It's called the Castle Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Their mistake. I didn't break in to their house. I was minding my own business in my own house.

 

[FLSH_BNG]

Well people who understand guns and safety tend to be a brighter people, note I said safety thats soemthign people donot comprehend.

Another thing people do not understand you can not ban something because of a few crazy people because it will just lead to the ban on other things.

Also criminals will always have weapons so banning it to make innocent people less safe is also silly.

I agree! Banning the firearms to all just because of a few idiots makes as much sense as punishing the masses for the crimes of a few individuals.

 

[notmyoldaccount]

Controversial? Meh, perhaps. I sympathize with the sentiment, I suppose, and it's a shame, but I come first. I don't know who is breaking in. Now, I'd like not to shoot someone, and if, upon hearing me rack a shell into the chamber, they decide to leave, fantastic. I really don't WANT to kill anyone. I'd rather they never broke the law or into my house. I'd rather they leave me and mine alone. If threatened, though, I'd rather be able to respond in kind. And if that means my 12ga mag, so be it.

This is where the problem lies in the legislation, if it is written how it has been expressed in this thread; that you can shoot to kill anyone in your house. You should have to prove in court that you used reasonable force because you thought your or your families life was in danger. E.G. they were in one of your bedrooms, they were also armed, they threatened you, etc

They were in my house. They were illegally there. It's called the Castle Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Their mistake. I didn't break in to their house. I was minding my own business in my own house.

I know what it is, I'm saying what I believe should be the law. Like how you use it; you wouldn't just shoot someone, you would give them a chance to flee etc, but people really shouldn't be allowed to just shoot first and ask questions later if it is obvious that the person is not immediately threatening you or your families lives.

Another moral plea- say your dad is elderly, in his 80s or 90s and he gets confused a lot and may stumble into the wrong house thinking it's his own, and someone shoots him dead the moment they see a man walking around in their house. How would you feel?

 

[Booze Zombie]

So, should I request a CV or a resume if someone breaks in to my house? I'm sorry, sir, are you here to merely rob me of valuables or are you here for a more nefarious purpose? I'm not saying that I'm necessarily going to shoot someone, but in the case that someone is in my house, well, that's a risk THEY have taken. But, I do give fair warning. My shotgun has nothing in the chamber. It's a Remington 870, and happens to have an amazing deterrent... the sound of a shell racking in to the chamber. I'd rather not shoot someone, and will give ample opportunity to scare them off. Same reason my Sig doesn't have anything in the chamber around the house.

As far as the relaxation goes, I can go to the range with a friend, practice a skill, and then drive home. I don't have to worry about impaired judgment while driving. Now, don't get me wrong, I love to go out and have a beer, but it's another form of relaxation. I thought you'd realize that. Apparently I'd hoped for too much. Also, getting stoned is illegal. Not to mention that I just don't enjoy it, and haven't since I was young and stupid. So, I show that guns have another use besides murder, defense, or hunting, and you mistake the intent and suggest that I break the law or risk breaking the law. Sure thing.

Why bother socialising with a gun when there's ample other devices to do that with, though? That was my point.

 

[CapnGod]

Spoiler

So, should I request a CV or a resume if someone breaks in to my house? I'm sorry, sir, are you here to merely rob me of valuables or are you here for a more nefarious purpose? I'm not saying that I'm necessarily going to shoot someone, but in the case that someone is in my house, well, that's a risk THEY have taken. But, I do give fair warning. My shotgun has nothing in the chamber. It's a Remington 870, and happens to have an amazing deterrent... the sound of a shell racking in to the chamber. I'd rather not shoot someone, and will give ample opportunity to scare them off. Same reason my Sig doesn't have anything in the chamber around the house.

As far as the relaxation goes, I can go to the range with a friend, practice a skill, and then drive home. I don't have to worry about impaired judgment while driving. Now, don't get me wrong, I love to go out and have a beer, but it's another form of relaxation. I thought you'd realize that. Apparently I'd hoped for too much. Also, getting stoned is illegal. Not to mention that I just don't enjoy it, and haven't since I was young and stupid. So, I show that guns have another use besides murder, defense, or hunting, and you mistake the intent and suggest that I break the law or risk breaking the law. Sure thing.

Why bother socialising with a gun when there's ample other devices to do that with, though? That was my point.

Why not? It's legal, it's available, and enjoyable. No one is injured, it stimulates the economy (it's weird, I never used to think like that), and it's something else. Do I do that exclusively? No. We also go to the driving range, batting cages, movies, bars, and a whole bunch of other things. We do it because it is fun.

It is also a skill. It is something you can be good at. Arguably, you could be good at watching movies, I suppose, but whether or not you're capable of handling and using a firearm is readily apparent and can show immediate results.

Also, it can be a lot of fun. Check out this: http://www.ipsc.org/ or look for it on YouTube. It's a sport, just like any other.

 

[tsb247]

Again, you are generalizing. You pointed out that, "you (are) more willing," to commit murder if you own a gun. You also stated that, "(Americans are) more entitles to murder criminals," which is hardly an informed comment. Can you honestly say what every gun owning American thinks? I think not. If you can, you need to quit your day job.

I own a gun. So that means I must be more willing than those without to commit murder? No, not at all. That is again, ignorant. I own guns for the sheer joy of shooting. I shoot targets and I hunt. I would defend myself if need be, but that hardly makes me more willing to murder.

You have obviously never been to America, or at least, not a good part of it. Like any country out there, there are parts that are not the best, but it is hardly a place requiring the wear of bullet proof vests.

And no. The point of an armed populace is not simply to kill every perceived foe. The idea is defense, nothing more. Most people who have guns for defense never have to use them, and would rather not have to.

SOME people SEEM to act like it's their right to murder anyone who breaks into their house, which I always think of as a bit silly.
Also, after I heard about that law where you can legally murder anyone who breaks into your house, my bias against American gun-owners was set.

I'm sorry, but I can't change that. It's just another one of my biases.

What about this law do you think you know? Different states have different laws about when you can and cannot shoot someone who breaks into your home. It's hardly a national law. In fact, guns laws in the U.S. vary from state to state.

You would be singing a different tune if a violent criminal broke into your home. Don't even think of saying otherwise because we all know it isn't true. What would you do? Would you walk up to this person who has already kicked your front door in and ask, "I'm sorry good sir, do you wish me harm? If so, I truly must protest, as I don't enjoy the concept of being murdered." I'm sure you would not. You would be terrified, and you would have no idea what his intent would be.

I will give you a does of your own medicine and give you Webster's definition of murder since you like to use the word so much:

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice afterthought.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Note the word unlawfully.

So if there is a law stating that one can DEFEND one's home in the event of a home invasion, even by means of deadly force, then it is not murder. It is self-defense. No average gun owner in the U.S. ever looks forward to the unlikely time when they may be forced to take a life. As I stated earlier, the instances where it is necessary to do so are very few and far between.

 

[tsb247]

And besides... I think CapnGod has said everything I could ever say, and he has said it better.

 

[CapnGod]

I've had trouble finding, but I'm sure someone interested can, the FBI statistics on how many times guns are used in self defense. I've heard projections as high as 2 million times a year, but no one really knows because not every time gets reported.

But, if you want to see some examples that do, go here:

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Yes, yes, it is from the NRA website. However, it is basically a collection of news clippings where people did in fact lawfully use a gun to defend themselves. And those are just instances that made it into the Armed Citizen. It happens, and I'm sure the people who lived because they were armed are glad to be alive. I know I would.

I'd rather feel remorse for having taken a life but live to feel that remorse than have my family endure the suffering.

 

[CapnGod]

And besides... I think CapnGod has said everything I could ever say, and he has said it better.

Thank you, good sir or madam, but you haven't been inarticulate yourself. I'm just glad there are other rational people out there.

And before you jump up and down throw a hissy fit, control advocates, I mean a rational defender of the right to own and bear arms.

 

[Booze Zombie]

What about this law do you think you know? Different states have different laws about when you can and cannot shoot someone who breaks into your home. It's hardly a national law. In fact, guns laws in the U.S. vary from state to state.

You would be singing a different tune if a violent criminal broke into your home. Don't even think of saying otherwise because we all know it isn't true. What would you do? Would you walk up to this person who has already kicked your front door in and ask, "I'm sorry good sir, do you wish me harm? If so, I truly must protest, as I don't enjoy the concept of being murdered." I'm sure you would not.

You would be terrified, and you would have no idea what his intent would be.

I would just call the police and hide. Jeez, it's not rocket science. You never surprise someone who breaks into your house.

We have instincts that make us act violently to surprise, I'm not risking someone doing something to me.

 

[iain62a]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

Yeah, but you're probably less likely to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. Knives are still dangerous, but I'm pretty sure that they're less dangerous than guns.

 

[Sane Man]

What about this law do you think you know? Different states have different laws about when you can and cannot shoot someone who breaks into your home. It's hardly a national law. In fact, guns laws in the U.S. vary from state to state.

You would be singing a different tune if a violent criminal broke into your home. Don't even think of saying otherwise because we all know it isn't true. What would you do? Would you walk up to this person who has already kicked your front door in and ask, "I'm sorry good sir, do you wish me harm? If so, I truly must protest, as I don't enjoy the concept of being murdered." I'm sure you would not.

You would be terrified, and you would have no idea what his intent would be.

I would just call the police and hide. Jeez, it's not rocket science. You never surprise someone who breaks into your house.

We have instincts that make us act violently to surprise, I'm not risking someone doing something to me.

And if they find you while you are pissing your pants in the corner? Especially if they find you and found out you called the police. Why would you not want to defend yourself? No one is saying to run around hunting criminals like vigilantes. Nor is anyone saying they cannot wait for the second someone breaks in so they can shoot them.

It simply gives you the means to defend yourself, your family, and your property. You know if you are good at throwing knives, then go ahead and do that. However, most people want to find the easiest thing to learn that has the most "leveling" effect. That happens to be firearms, and here we are.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

I'd say you're quite a minority, in England. Going upon your disdain for the police and your age I'd say it's down to lack of life experience.

Yea, no shit I'm a minority.

However my disdain for the police is based on my experience of them, two weeks ago about 20 people between ages like 14 and 20 went to this house across the road from me and began banging on the doors and windows yelling about how the girl inside was going to die if she didn't open the door. So me mother decides to the phone the Popo after watching the people for about 10 minutes, about half an hour goes by with no sign of the police when the girl finally decides to anwser the door and gets fucked up by some of the people. About 10 minutes after they all dispersed the operator calls my house back asking how we're doing. Police never showed up, had a good half hour to do so before the girl came out of her house. It's just like that song by Public Enemy.

But you're right, I should let the grown ups talk.

 

[Booze Zombie]

And if they find you while you are pissing your pants in the corner? Especially if they find you and found out you called the police. Why would you not want to defend yourself? No one is saying to run around hunting criminals like vigilantes. Nor is anyone saying they cannot wait for the second someone breaks in so they can shoot them.

It simply gives you the means to defend yourself, your family, and your property. You know if you are good at throwing knives, then go ahead and do that. However, most people want to find the easiest thing to learn that has the most "leveling" effect. That happens to be firearms, and here we are.

There's nothing to gain from being a hero. Call the police, hide at a neighbour's house.

Not to mention, pepper spray, tasers and stun guns can work, too...

 

[CapnGod]

I'd say you're quite a minority, in England. Going upon your disdain for the police and your age I'd say it's down to lack of life experience.

Yea, no shit I'm a minority.

However my disdain for the police is based on my experience of them, two weeks ago about 20 people between ages like 14 and 20 went to this house across the road from me and began banging on the doors and windows yelling about how the girl inside was going to die if she didn't open the door. So me mother decides to the phone the Popo after watching the people for about 10 minutes, about half an hour goes by with no sign of the police when the girl finally decides to anwser the door and gets fucked up by some of the people. About 10 minutes after they all dispersed the operator calls my house back asking how we're doing. Police never showed up, had a good half hour to do so before the girl came out of her house. It's just like that song by Public Enemy.

But you're right, I should let the grown ups talk.

That's the other thing people forget. I can't speak for anyone but Americans, but police in this country have no duty to respond. You cannot sue the police if they don't show up. The only person who is responsible for your own safety and defense is yourself.

http://www.publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html

 

[tsb247]

Look at the UK. We don't all have guns but we've got some serious knife crime issues.

I agree that guns aren't going to solve the problem but if someone wants to harm another person, they'll find something to arm themselves with.

Yeah, but you're probably less likely to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. Knives are still dangerous, but I'm pretty sure that they're less dangerous than guns.

A knife is no less dangerous than a gun. Granted, they have very limited range unless you have one hell of a throwing arm, but they still kill people just as dead. In fact, I would say knives are a far more violent and brutal way to kill someone than shooting them. Knives show more intent.

 

[CapnGod]

And if they find you while you are pissing your pants in the corner? Especially if they find you and found out you called the police. Why would you not want to defend yourself? No one is saying to run around hunting criminals like vigilantes. Nor is anyone saying they cannot wait for the second someone breaks in so they can shoot them.

It simply gives you the means to defend yourself, your family, and your property. You know if you are good at throwing knives, then go ahead and do that. However, most people want to find the easiest thing to learn that has the most "leveling" effect. That happens to be firearms, and here we are.

There's nothing to gain from being a hero. Call the police, hide at a neighbour's house.

Not to mention, pepper spray, tasers and stun guns can work, too...

You keep escalating the acceptable level of response. First, it's hide. Now, you're advocating using force of some level. Why not just accept that force might be necessary, and the best force is the kind that they will understand? Everyone gets a gun. It's a pretty unambiguous means of communicating your intent that they have invaded your home and you mean to have them leave.

Your problem here is that you refuse to take off the kid gloves for the criminals, but want to hold the victim to some sort of moral high ground.

 

[veloper]

Which is better, gun rights or gun bans? Maybe it depends on how many sane people are left around you.

A good defense against a man armed with a knife or a stick, is simply being in the company of adult friends.
One crazed killer needs to be really skilled in the martial arts before he can reliably defeat group of men without a firearm. The odds a man is mad enough attack many with a knife are low and the normal people still outnumber the crazies.

Guns change all that. With the initiave, lying in wait, a killer with a firearm can suprise and kill multiple armed men and with relatively little skill. There's no safety in numbers anymore with guns in the equation.

For any nation where firearms are not very wide spread and where society has not broken down, a ban is the only sensible thing to have.

 

[Booze Zombie]

You keep escalating the acceptable level of response. First, it's hide. Now, you're advocating using force of some level. Why not just accept that force might be necessary, and the best force is the kind that they will understand? Everyone gets a gun. It's a pretty unambiguous means of communicating your intent that they have invaded your home and you mean to have them leave.

Your problem here is that you refuse to take off the kid gloves for the criminals, but want to hold the victim to some sort of moral high ground.

I'm a refuse to kill kinda guy. Just how I roll.