Bowling for Virginia Tech

[mike777]

U.S.A gun fetisism is a peculiar phenomenon. I live in the belief that the most western countries have gun control that prohibits a man to own a gun without a valid reason.

I cant say how the people sleep at night, when they have a constant fear that a knife man can break in their house and not to have a gun under the pillow. A telling example where I come from. If someone steals my dvd-player, I can try to stop the thief freshly, but basicly without force. That means I cant hit or shoot the poor thief. I agree, why would I even think of killing him for a dvd-player. Let's say that a knife man comes to my house with unknown but suspicious intends. Shoot the bastard. No! My first duty is to run away, if it is possible. My leg is hurting. Shoot the bastard! No! I must be in real physical danger. The knife raises over my head. I say between the eyes! No! I must aim to a less fatal point. The knife comes down. Shoot him! Dead. I will spend a day in court explaning my actions.

I really think this is a perceptive post. Excellent example between the mythology of the USA and the mythology of other countries. I do think this is the mindset of many many gun owners in the USA versus the mindset of unilateral disarmament in many other countries.

 

Speaking of mythology no matter what the correct interpretation of the second Bill of Rights is, please understand the mythology of the Bill of Rights in the USA.

 

1) In poll after poll, decade after decade, when many of the Bill of Rights are asked without identifying them as such Americans vote to get rid of many of them.

2) But suggest to get rid of one of the Bill of Rights directly and Americans would always vote no.

 

 

BTW what is the gun control thoughts in most other western countries?

BTW2 what is the gun control thoughts in most other nonwestern countries?

[1eyedjack]

U.S.A gun fetisism is a peculiar phenomenon. I live in the belief that the most western countries have gun control that prohibits a man to own a gun without a valid reason.

I cant say how the people sleep at night, when they have a constant fear that a knife man can break in their house and not to have a gun under the pillow. A telling example where I come from. If someone steals my dvd-player, I can try to stop the thief freshly, but basicly without force. That means I cant hit or shoot the poor thief. I agree, why would I even think of killing him for a dvd-player. Let's say that a knife man comes to my house with unknown but suspicious intends. Shoot the bastard. No! My first duty is to run away, if it is possible. My leg is hurting. Shoot the bastard! No! I must be in real physical danger. The knife raises over my head. I say between the eyes! No! I must aim to a less fatal point. The knife comes down. Shoot him! Dead. I will spend a day in court explaning my actions.

My first duty is survival, of myself and my family. Running away (where feasible) may be the practical option that best furthers that objective, but it might not be practical if (as you say) your leg hurts, or if the family remain exposed.

 

Other options involving a "proportionate response" require a subjective assessment of personal risk, which assessment is inevitably exposed to a margin of error and which assessment will need to be computed instantaneously and in less than ideal conditions. Personally I would build into my action a potential for error margin that favours my survival. When it gets to court, the court may disagree with my assessment and I may get "sent down". And much as I might regret the loss of life of the assailant I would not regret the response taken. I would take my medicine, but I would survive to be released at a later date, and I would hope that my family would also see it that way, even if they were deprived of my presence for some years.

 

So if I had a gun to hand and someone were to break into my house and adopt a threatening posture, I suspect that I would, as you say, "shoot the bastard". I guess I will never know for sure, unless and until I am put in the position of having to decide. I sincerely hope that I do not take too long deciding, is all.

 

I would certainly try to argue that the assailant knew the risks that he was taking.

[pbleighton]

"Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?"

 

Legalized concealed weapons, though Iran with the bomb is scary too.

 

A key difference you chose not to mention: we don't have to start a shooting war to ban legalized concealed weapons.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

I Have a question for the gun control advocates.

 

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

Given that there are 11,000 gun homicides every year in the US, I don't think you could blame anyone living in the US to be more afraid of murder than of the number of countries with nuclear weapons maybe increasing by one in a couple of years. Anything else would be irrational.

 

Yes I answered a slightly different question, but that's because you asked the wrong question. Why are you just asking about CCW when it is about the ease of access to weapons in the US in general?

 

(Btw, the obvious counter-question is: Are you in favor of shall-issue CCW laws?

But the more relevant one is: Are you in favor of gun sales with no ID/background check at all?)

[pclayton]

Personally I don't like guns. I grew up in Montana where everyone had a 12 gauge mounted in their window of their pickup. I've never hunted, although I get an annual invitation to shoot dove in Yuma, AZ every 9/1. I just don't see the interest of waking up at 4 in the morning when its already 100 degrees outside. Dove taste like crap, plus I really don't think its a fair fight.

 

That being said, guns are already part of the US culture. You aren't taking them away, and even if you criminalized them, there would already be enough in circulation where it wouldn't matter anyway.

 

I don't have a problem with barring automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and I don't have a problem with mandatory waiting lists for the purchase of any weapon. But handguns should all be fair game. Also to Arend, I don't like the idea of selling weapons to anyone with a record of violence, or someone that sold drugs (not hooch), or anyone under "x" age. Note that its a right to own a gun, not a priviledge.

 

Similar to drugs, I believe the answer is making concealed weapons legal. The last time I checked, if you murder someone, you spend a long time behind bars. However, if a mugger, or a burglar, or a rapist is thinking about taking me on, and I have a 9mm in a shoulder holster under my sport coat, or in the glove box in my car, or under my bed, he'll think twice.

 

By the way, if a manufacturer came up with some kind of immobilization device that was as accurate as a handgun and as light, I would reverse my stance on this. You need to be able to take care of someone within a 30' range. A taser still looks like a TV remote, and is awkward to use.

 

The anti-gun crowd thinks that owning a gun is on par with wanting to use it. I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

 

As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker.

[bid_em_up]

Sorry but these are completely different things. Considering this, why is there no freedom to drink alcohol or use drugs in the USA?

 

There are freedoms to drink alcohol. Why do you think otherwise? There are restrictions against driving while under the infuence of alcohol (as there should be).

 

Certain drugs need to be legalized, imo, but thats another issue.

 

I think you should not take away someone's hunting rifle that people use to hunt deer, just like you shouldn't take away people's fishing rod. But why not restrict it to hunting rifles then? Most guns are NOT made to shoot deer, yet they are designed to be aimed against other people.

 

If you are in possession of dangerous tools you should have a proper education and licence to prove it. In many jobs you might encounter dangerous materials and they cannot be used without a proper training. Car drivers have passed a test and have a licence to drive. If you want to own a gun a similar procedure should be followed.

 

I agree. If you wish to own a weapon, then you should be required to prove that you know how to use it, prior to being allowed to own one.

 

Does anyone in the forum have a gun at home? If you do, consider this: If an unarmed burglar is in your house, how sure are you that if you are at home you will not suddenly be facing the wrong end of your own gun? What might have started as a relatively harmless (for your health) burglary may suddenly lead to your death!

 

This is absolute hogwash, however, and a terrible reason to advocate gun control. I owned a pistol at one point in time. I sold it, due to the facts that I did not have any training with it, and I had a young child. You never hear of anyone being shot by a burglar with the homeowners weapon. There are frequently stories of the homeowner shooting the intruder however.

 

But, the most likely scenarios of death or injury by one's own weapon, unfortunately, are by far those that occur when either the owner accidently shoots himself, or when a child finds the gun and is playing with it. I was more concerned with the chance of my child finding it and playing with it, however, which was the deciding factor in selling it.

[pbleighton]

The anti-gun crowd thinks that owning a gun is on par with wanting to use it.

 

This statement is absolutely false. I know many people whi favor gun control (my mother founded a gun control group) and none of them would agree with this statement.

 

As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker.

 

Nicely reasoned, Phil. Logic, evidence, the whole thing.

 

BTW, he's bad, not mad.

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

I find it beyond belief that students can buy a machine gun (although if you look Arabic you might be arrested the next day if you did), you'd think that it would be the first step towards keeping the US population safe is to get rid of this law.

 

People like the guy who was on German television a couple of minutes ago who suggested that if the teachers would have had a gun that they could have protected the student, have in my opinion completely lost their connection to reality.

What difference does it make if it was a student, or just someone over the legal age (in the US) to purchase a gun?

 

It was not a "machine-gun". It was a semi-automatic pistol. Granted, they can be fired rapidly and reloaded quickly, but there is a difference.

 

And why has the guy lost touch with reality? You don't think that if one of the teachers had a weapon also (or one of the other students for that matter), that they might have been able to shoot this guy before he could continue his spree?

 

Now, I would not want all teachers everywhere being armed in our schools where kids might gain access to the gun, but the point is certainly valid.

 

Besides, no gun-control law anywhere is going to prevent someone who is psychopathic and hellbent on destruction from finding a means of committing some atrocity, if they really wish to do so. Gun-control advocates who believe otherwise have lost just as much touch with reality, imo, as the people who claim the teachers should have been armed.

[bid_em_up]

The point of gun control would be to make it harder for him to acquire the weapons in the first place.

Nonsense.

 

Handguns are easily obtainable on the street, if you know where to look or who to ask.

 

Sad, but true.

[pclayton]

The anti-gun crowd thinks that owning a gun is on par with wanting to use it.

 

This statement is absolutely false. I know many people whi favor gun control (my mother founded a gun control group) and none of them would agree with this statement.

 

As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker.

 

Nicely reasoned, Phil. Logic, evidence, the whole thing.

 

BTW, he's bad, not mad.

 

Peter

Peter:

 

I'm sure I could google a poll or a study that supports my view. What would be the point? We'd then have a discussion about the relevance or methodology of what I choose to cite, and the agenda behind the group that conducted the study.

 

Can't we just share our opinions? Its not like any of us have a life outside these forums where I need to be sifting through 'evidence' to support my views.

[bid_em_up]

If so which "more" laws do you wish for?

 

1. Banning of all civilian ownership and use of handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and automatic weapons.

2. Registration of rifles and shotguns.

...............

 

I would oppose any effort to ban rifles and/or shotguns, except those which are either automatic, semiautomatic, and easily convertible. Hunting, target practice, and defense of the home are legitimate activities.

 

Peter

And a handgun, semi-automatic, or automatic can't be used for the defense of the home? They can't be used for target practice?

 

These statements appear contradictory to me.

 

Besides, a handgun is more likely to be used for defense of the home, by its very nature. They are easily stored in an accessible location for use in an emergency.

 

I could agree with banning automatic weapons, however.

[mike777]

300 million people in USA

Only 200 million guns owned by private citizens, even if you add in public ownership of guns, sounds like there maybe a gun shortage here.

 

Not sure how many privately owned guns in all of Europe or all of Africa.

[pclayton]

Right! Being a free society does not mean unlimited access to firearms. Automatic weapons are nothing more than killing machines.

 

Although come to think of it, it would be fun to own a bazooka and blow up abandoned buildings for target practice.

 

Just Kidding :D

[bid_em_up]

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

 

About 100 times more afraid of legalized concealed weapons! I don't want just everyone to be able to own a gun. And please change Iran to North-Korea, unlike what everyone wants you to believe, Iran wants nuclear power plants.

I suppose you believe the world is flat and the moon is made of cheese also?

[bid_em_up]

I cant say how the people sleep at night, when they have a constant fear that a knife man can break in their house and not to have a gun under the pillow.

Sorry but if this is your worry when you sleep at night then either you are paranoid or you are living in a BAD neighbourhood.

Tell this to the gentleman down the street from me, who is living in a $300,000 condo, ritzy country-club neighborhood, mid-50's, with his wife, who one afternoon got a knock on his door. He answered it (evidently, he already had his weapon in hand), to find two crackhead hoodlums trying to strongarm their way into his place of residence. They had driven from miles up the road, seeking a place to rob. Note, this was in the MIDDLE of the day, not even at night.

 

He shot them both. Good for him. One of them died in the street, about 3 blocks from where I live.

 

Hurray, that is one less scumbag on the face of the earth.

[the saint]

The strong always dominate the weak. I don't see why it's better to have those strong in guns dominate, rather than those strong in number or in muscle strength. After all, the robber prepares himself for a robbery by making sure his gun is loaded and readily available. While the shopkeeper may be taken by surprise. And even if both will have equal power in either case, I suppose the robbery is more likely to end up with someone getting killed if both have a gun than if neither has a gun.

Its simple. If everyone has a gun at home, then the criminals will simply make sure thay have bigger and better weapons. So the homeowner and the public do the same. And so on. It becomes self-perpetuating.

 

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons. And don't give me this hunting claptrap either. Where is the pleasure in shooting defenceless animals? Its not big and its not clever.

[pclayton]

The strong always dominate the weak. I don't see why it's better to have those strong in guns dominate, rather than those strong in number or in muscle strength. After all, the robber prepares himself for a robbery by making sure his gun is loaded and readily available. While the shopkeeper may be taken by surprise. And even if both will have equal power in either case, I suppose the robbery is more likely to end up with someone getting killed if both have a gun than if neither has a gun.

Its simple. If everyone has a gun at home, then the criminals will simply make sure thay have bigger and better weapons. So the homeowner and the public do the same. And so on. It becomes self-perpetuating.

 

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons. And don't give me this hunting claptrap either. Where is the pleasure in shooting defenceless animals? Its not big and its not clever.

I don't think so. A handgun versus a knife isn't the same as a handgun versus bigger handgun.

 

And don't tell me a burglar is going to break into my house with an Uzi, because he thinks I have a handgun. What will happen is the burglar doesn't come into my house, because of the inherent threat to his life.

 

The escalating weapon idea looks OK on paper, but doesn't hold water.

[pclayton]

Its braver to make a stand and try for an idealized world where nobody has any weapons

I'd rather hope for an idealized world where we don't pay taxes. I guess we all have our own idea of utopia :D

[jdonn]

What will happen is the burglar doesn't come into my house, because of the inherent threat to his life.

The burgler doesn't know who does and doesn't have a gun. It's not like there is a sign on your front door. The inherent threat won't work unless at least most people have guns, and some/many/most will never get them.

 

I don't believe any guns except hunting rifles should be legal. It's not just that they can (and do) kill people, but that's ALL they do. Knives and hunting rifles can kill people but serve a useful purpose*, and these are generally purposes for which no other tool would be nearly as adequate. They are also not nearly as deadly as handguns.

 

This whole debate boggles my mind. The only thing that can be gained by allowing people to own guns is protection against other people with guns. Well, if only these other people didn't have guns then!

 

And sorry Phil but I've never read a more ridiculous statement than

 

"As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker. "

 

How many people are killed in the U.S. every year from guns, most of which I believe were concealed? I don't know the exact number but I know it's been in 5 digits for years. How many get killed by nukes from a madman? Looks like none to me.

 

* I don't want to get into a debate about whether hunting is a 'useful purpose'. I don't do it, but it is an activity that many people view as worthwhile. If it could be shown that hunting was useless or not worthwhile or 'shouldnt' be done, then I wouldn't think hunting rifles should be legal either.

[pbleighton]

"Can't we just share our opinions? Its not like any of us have a life outside these forums where I need to be sifting through 'evidence' to support my views."

 

You made two blanket, unfavorable, confrontational and IMO ridiculous statements about all people who disagree with your views. Did you really expect not to be called on them?

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

And a handgun, semi-automatic, or automatic can't be used for the defense of the home? They can't be used for target practice?

 

These statements appear contradictory to me.

 

You misunderstood my post. Perhaps it is my fault. Let me explain.

 

I wasn't saying that handguns or semi-automatic or automatic weapons couldn't be used for defense of the home. I said that rifles and shotguns were adequate for this purpose.

 

Handguns are far more dangerous to society than rifles and shotguns, as they can be easily carried and concealed. Banning them will, in the long run (and I know it will be the long run) make society safer. Allowing the continued ownership of rifles and shotguns permits the continued use of guns for legitimate purposes.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me.

[pclayton]

"Can't we just share our opinions? Its not like any of us have a life outside these forums where I need to be sifting through 'evidence' to support my views."

 

You made two blanket, unfavorable, confrontational and IMO ridiculous statements about all people who disagree with your views. Did you really expect not to be called on them?

 

Peter

And so have you Peter.

 

I would categorize the banning of all handguns as "blanket", wouldn't you?

 

Reading back, you essentially agreed with the only confrontational thing I have written.

 

I'm at a loss at what you feel is ridiculous.

[pbleighton]

"I seem to have underestimated the difference between old Europe and the USA once more. I don't think I would want to live in the USA, the mentality is just way too different for me."

 

Don't worry, Gerben, things aren't as different in real life as they are in the Forums :(

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

I would categorize the banning of all handguns as "blanket", wouldn't you?

 

I made a statement about legislation I proposed. I made no such statement about people who disagreed with me. You, OTOH, said:

 

1. You asked:

Are you more afraid of legalized concealed weapons or Iran building a nuclear bomb?

I responded:

Legalized concealed weapons, though Iran with the bomb is scary too.

You then replied:

As a footnote, anyone who fears concealed weapons more than a madman with nukes is completely off their rocker.

So I, and those who agree with me, are completely off my rocker. This is completely ridiculous.

2. You said:

The anti-gun crowd thinks that owning a gun is on par with wanting to use it.

This is completely ridiculous. We do not think this.

 

Peter