Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[feel the light]

Originally Posted by Gilby

I think you missed my point. You're trying to make the same point against my example, which I made obviously invalid so as to make a point against BTM.

Instead of looking at the availability of a tool or legality of owning a tool that is used for homicides and linking that to being the cause of homicides, you need more data and focus on the actual cause of the higher rate of homicides. People don't kill just because they have a gun. There is some other reason for it.

To proud to run yet to old and or weak to fight, and so wants to fight anyway. A gun makes a weak fighter a gun fighter. Doc Holiday weighed 98 lbs last thanks giving, and had tuberculous to boot. So small he was hard to hit, wore big clothes. He was fearless because he felt like it, and he had a gun.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Zzagg

Wich country or region is big enough to deserve the right of being compared with th US?

It depends on what is being compared. When factors such as population density, economic conditions, social factors etc. come into play, all of a sudden size doesn't look as important...

you guys living on the orange are much more likely to be murdered than us guys living on the apple. period.

Uhh, no I'm not. You're assuming that every neighborhood in the US has the exact same homicide rate.

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

I just scratch my head with extensions of this principle: after all we shall not be prejudiced if someone carries a gun; he/she is not necessarily going to commit a crime. So if someone carries dynamite sticks under his vest that could be to frighten rabbits;we shall carry no prejudice: there is no reason to stop him until he timothy-Mc-Veighs a whole building.

If we took your "extension" to its logical conclusion, then you'd argue every US citizen should be able to possess a nuclear weapon. Let's not be silly.

A gun cannot destroy an entire building with a single trigger pull. Let's not pretend they're more dangerous than they are.

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by maestro8

If we took your "extension" to its logical conclusion, then you'd argue every US citizen should be able to possess a nuclear weapon. Let's not be silly.

A gun cannot destroy an entire building with a single trigger pull. Let's not pretend they're more dangerous than they are.

danger level is a good start for a discussion: if dynamite is too dangerous why use a gun?
If owning a gun is to defend our home and family why use a possibly lethal weapon?
There are now lot of ways to incapacitate an agressor but why prefer something which is overengineered for the purpose?

Being a cynic I pretend that we *love* killing but being moral animals we wait for a good reason to do it. Self-defence is the best of excuse: then you are a hero and you win on both grounds!
"happyness is a waarm gun! yes it is!"
Being animals we also value symbolic marks of power :we don't have antlers to show who is the alpha male so we love substitutes.
(ah yes lot of amazons love guns too!)

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

for sure: governments that have excessive powers do not abuse their power just because they can. There are some other reasons for it ......

Your analogy is wrong in that government, by its nature, is an entity that operates through the initiation of violence. Whereas guns are simply a tool, and while they can be used to initiate violence, they can also be used to respond to the initiation of violence.

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by Gilby

Your analogy is wrong in that government, by its nature, is an entity that operates through the initiation of violence. .

wow! have you thought of a career as manga writer? your description of a government is not that of a bunch of humans but more like a bloodthirsty supernatural being with protruding fangs!

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

wow! have you thought of a career as manga writer? your description of a government is not that of a bunch of humans but more like a bloodthirsty supernatural being with protruding fangs!

If I get a bunch of humans together, is that entity now government? No. So your definition doesn't work. This bunch of humans would have to meet the demands of the entity known as government that has a territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence.

[Nurse Ben]

If owning a gun is to defend our home and family why use a possibly lethal weapon?

Now isn't that the most sensible thing posted to date, and from a European, just imagine that

Seriously, I have no problem with someone wanting to protect themselves, but there is no need for lethal weapons.

So, let's take the guns away, allow folks to use tazers or those non lethal projectiles (bean bags?), then we retain the positives and lose the negatives.

Whatcha' think Gilby?

[Nurse Ben]

has a territorial monopoly on the initiation of violence

A monopoly? I think you are misusing the term. A legal right to initiate violence, maybe that's what you mean.

Anyone can initiate violence, isn't that the root of this discussion? People initiating violence for "illegal" means, so "we" fear for our safety and want the right to be armed for defense.

It's silly, the majority of guns are sitting collecting dust, those that get the most use are being used for crimes, I wish that gun controls were far more stingent, but then the people who make and sell guns would have to find new jobs...

Gilby, do you ever consider the importance of doing the right thing vs demanding the right to do what you want? Maybe being unarmed and saying no to violence is the right things to do.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

I have no problem with someone wanting to protect themselves, but there is no need for lethal weapons.

How am I to protect myself against an intruder who has a lethal weapon, if I'm only allowed a Nerf gun?

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

Maybe being unarmed and saying no to violence is the right things to do.

...because that whole "say no to drugs" campaign worked out so well?

Guns don't always mean violence. Think deterrence, think "mutually assured destruction".

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by maestro8

How am I to protect myself against an intruder who has a lethal weapon, if I'm only allowed a Nerf gun?
.

sorry what's a nerf gun?
now what's the difference? the first one who shoots wins
(and btw unless you are a sharpshooter your chance of stopping an agressor with an incapacitative weapon are far greater than with a pistol)
for the purpose do you need an armalite or an uzi submachine gun? (btw both are useless against an intruder).

now if you are a responsible gun owner you are going to train. So you go to a shooting range and then you train on a silhouette with a heart on it! come on kill! kill! why train to incapacitate if you can be trained to kill!
aiming for the heart is the easiest target? no according to real sharpshooters!

[Nurse Ben]

How am I to protect myself against an intruder who has a lethal weapon

And you think a typical gun owner has the wherewithal (read as composure) to win that "round"?

Right!

More than likely, the weapon they own will be used against them or it will be stolen and used against someone else or it will be found by a kid and used on their little friends.

It is all American Machismo, plain and simple, big cars, big houses, big guns, all to satisfy some sense of power that means nothing, but serves to pump up their ego.

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world sees us as bullies and power mongers

Maestro8, I have weapons training, also have training in martial arts, and have fought full contact, I'm no wimp. If someone came at me with a lethal weapon I would turn tail and run, and I encourage all of you to do the same. Heros die the same as everyone else.

Non lethal force, doing the right thing, because killing is wrong, and two wrongs a right do not make.

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

Gilby, do you ever consider the importance of doing the right thing vs demanding the right to do what you want? Maybe being unarmed and saying no to violence is the right things to do.

Being unarmed or armed is neither the right or wrong thing to do... it's up to your personal preference on how you want to protect yourself. Saying no to initiating violence is the right thing to do. That's why I object to your demand for initiating violence to unarm everybody.

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

It's silly, the majority of guns are sitting collecting dust, those that get the most use are being used for crimes

I agree, the guns that get the most use are by the military and the police, and most of what they do is the initiation of violence against others. That is criminal. And you want these criminals to take away all those guns that are collecting dust from people who would likely only ever use them in self defense?

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

So, let's take the guns away, allow folks to use tazers or those non lethal projectiles (bean bags?), then we retain the positives and lose the negatives.

All the positives? Tasers and bean bag rounds do not have the range, accuracy, or capacity of guns or other weapons, just to name a few. They also have the negatives. Police tend to over use them in cases where they shouldn't be used since they falsely think they are harmless. They also kill. If you are limited to only using a taser or bean bag round, who do you think will win, you or the gun carrying criminal aggressing against you?

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

And you think a typical gun owner has the wherewithal (read as composure) to win that "round"?

Why should the behavior of some hypothetical "typical" owner have any bearing on my right to own a weapon?

all to satisfy some sense of power that means nothing, but serves to pump up their ego

I hope you feel better after getting that rant off your chest, but it does nothing to address the subject at hand.

Maestro8, I have weapons training, also have training in martial arts, and have fought full contact, I'm no wimp

*whips out e-peener*

Murse Ben, I can assemble a nuclear weapon with one hand while rolling a cigarette in another, and I've killed men with naught but a sideways glance.

*puts e-peener away*

But, again, what does that do to address my right to own a weapon?

killing is wrong, and two wrongs a right do not make

No, sitting idly while letting your loved ones come to harm is wrong. If I have to kill someone to keep my family safe, so be it. I sure hope that never becomes the case, but I sure won't lose any sleep over it.

[feel the light]

41 states now have laws that make it easy to get a concealed carry permit. In all cases, these states saw a reduction in robbery and murder. Nationally, the trend seems to be that robbers are discouraged by the concern they may be shot. The police may not be everywhere, but maybe that little old jewler's 38 is in her bra.

Illinois is not one of those states. Cops stop and shake down people, and you best not be found with a gun. More people get shot in Chicago than Afghanistan, and that's a fact.

I would be more in favor of gun control if anyone could come up with good examples of where it works somewhere to reduce violence. So far, the places with the gun bans seem to be the places where the gang bangers rule.

Can anyone come up with a state that legalized concealed carry, and crime went up ? It always went down, and I feel that is most relevant.

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

It's silly, the majority of guns are sitting collecting dust, those that get the most use are being used for crimes...

The ones that get used the most are probably used by militaries, police and then hobbyist shooters. Then criminals.

Originally Posted by maestro8

How am I to protect myself against an intruder who has a lethal weapon, if I'm only allowed a Nerf gun?

Steven Segal doesn't need a weapon. His Nerf gun would be sufficient (ending up somewhere inside the intruder's body).

Originally Posted by maestro8

...because that whole "say no to drugs" campaign worked out so well?

It worked fine for me.

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

...what's the difference? the first one who shoots wins

I see your smiley, but I'll point out that the first one that successfully hits the target wins. Or, for that matter, gets missed. Then you keep on shooting until that stops happening...

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

(and btw unless you are a sharpshooter your chance of stopping an agressor with an incapacitative weapon are far greater than with a pistol)

This sounds true enough, at least under the right conditions. If you shoot someone in the leg with a bullet, they can still shoot back. If you shoot them in the leg with a taser, they won't.

But I think I could make successful use of an Uzi against an intruder. Hopefully without having the pull the trigger.

Originally Posted by wobbling bear

kill! why train to incapacitate if you can be trained to kill! aiming for the heart is the easiest target?

Aiming for the center of the chest probably gives you the best odds of hitting some part of the body. Unless you're at really close range, aiming at the leg, for instance, may just waste bullets. If you practice, you are much more capable of hitting whatever spot you aim for.

Originally Posted by Gilby

If you are limited to only using a taser or bean bag round, who do you think will win, you or the gun carrying criminal aggressing against you?

Like I said, my taser only needs to hit him in the meat, and I win. He has to make an incapacitating shot. Of course if he's farther away than the range of my taser he definitely has the upper hand...

Originally Posted by maestro8

Nurse Ben, I can assemble a nuclear weapon with one hand while rolling a cigarette in another...

The Surgeon General does not recommend that method.