Interesting. I was looking into a couple things about full-automatic weapons the other day, and I found that FBI, the police authority responsible for the background investigations of would-be automatic weapon owners, are themselves “missing” a couple dozen of their full-auto guns.
Most (read all) of the memers of my family who are in the police department agree that you have a very slim point. They are of the opinion though that once they have taken the oath of office, they then have a moral obligation to server the community to the very best of their ability. You can only understand this sense of obligation after looking into the eyes of a police office has tried thier hardest and still been unable to save someones life. I’d rather trust that look than a cold piece of metal.
I am sorry but I have to take you to task over this assertion. How was the general disarming in Australia, a country that voted for the general disarming where there was in the order of a 94% voter tun out (Voting being complusory) and still the over whelming opinion was to disarm. Please cite the oppression that took place after this event. I have some family there and I don’t here of them being oppressed. Maybe you are paranoid after all. 
We’d think we live our lives by the code “Do unto others” but we have changed the ending to “before they do unto you.”
I know a number of cops myself. I’d still rather rely on my own abilities than those of an overworked, abused minority that have too much to do with too few resources.
As for Australia…wait for it. If they are the abberation to the rule, then I for one will applaud them. But one exception does not invalidate the general rule. 
Very true I’ll agree hence I am not adverse to self defense, however there are many many other measures that we can take to ensure our own safety before we need to resort to lethal force. The problem really comes from the fact that many people are only too willing to go down the road of shoot first ask questions later, on the grounds of it’s my property and I’m defending it.
Laws, rules, theories, Your analogy was at best, a theory which the Australian example has proven to be wrong. Maybe if the Australian federal government does get re-elected this year I’ll believe you. It’s an election year in Australia also. The federal liberal government has been in office down there for a couple of terms now, this seems normally to mean it’s time for change. The war in Iraq stirs just as many feeling in Australians who are fighting along side US troops in Iraq. The part about the Australian example that most people can’t come to terms with is, that a group of people can learn to live without the need for violent weapons in everyday life.
“Do unto others…
as you would have them do unto you” = Moral
Before they do unto you" = Legal
Personally, I’d rather be dead and morally right, than alive and morally dead.
But if this is true, and it is also true that not all violence is gun violence, then why are you worried about guns? If most people don’t have to worry about violence of any sort, why do you worry about gun violence?
Possibly, and if I could shoot monkeys out of my arse I might not need to defend myself at all.
The point is you have not provided one single practicle proposal for makeing sure that “no one ha[s] guns”. Your idea of punishing people who have guns has been tried many times and does not work.
Sorry to but in, but isn’t his a common assertion amongst anti gun advocates? Have you ever seen substantiation for it?
What I mean is given that gun bans will primarily affect law abiding gun owners, doesn’t this assertion assume that they are the ones who “are only too willing to go donw the road of shoot first ask questions later”? Isn’t it more plausible that criminals are much more apt to go down that road than law abiding citizens? And if that is the case, shouldn’t we focus our efforts on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals instead of removing choices from law abiding citizens?
Just a couple quick thoughts.
I’m in no way using this statement to say any such thing. What I am saying is that I believe, that if only one person mistakenly shoots and kills another person, who they “assume” is trying to rob them, then far too many people have jumped to the conclusion of I have a right to defend, would you not agree?
::Example:: Man comes home not expecting anything out of the ordinary, house is dark man sees tall figure walking down the stairs, man shoots, man on stairs dies, man who shot turns on light finds dead brother had come to visit for out of state. Film at 11:00…::Example::
You see I view one unecessary death as a reason to disarm. I believe that we should use the law for our protection more than we do. We should give the police the power to do the job society asks them to do. I know this can be a double edged sword but what sort of future do we have install for us if all we are worried about is our right to be able to kill another human being? Given a place where no one lawfully possesses a gun I believe this is a huge advantage to a police officer who has my express permission to shoot first ask questions later, if the other guy has a gun. Personally I don’t find it necessary for one person to have easy access to a tools whose primary function is to cause damage to life and limb. And yes, as I stated earlier I do own guns although I’ve never found the need to use them to defend my property or family. I have never found any need to possess a gun while living in the city neither.
So, one private citizen mistakenly shooting someone is, in your judgement, reason to take guns away from every private citizen.
Why does not similar logic apply to the police? Do they not some times kill by mistake? What do we advocate for such things?
I agree that the criminal justice system should be utilized in any and every instance of self defence where it does not worsen the problem. If I am 30 minutes from police help and a perpetrator is shooting at me, I think it makes the situation worse to diall 911 and wait for rescue. Such rescue has little chance of arriving in time to do anything but clean up and search for forensic evidence. By the same token, if I feel threatened by a neighbor I should certainly call the police before heading over to his home with a gun.
Just so we are clear, I don’t think anyone is actually asking for the “right to kill another human being”. I think we are simply asking for the right to defend ourselves with the best means available. There is a big difference.
BTW, thanks for inserting a discussion into this thread. 
This isn’t an example; it’s a hypothetical. Now I’m very certain that accidental gun deaths do occur, but according to the DOJ own stats, accidental gun deaths do not occur with the frequency that your statement, “many people are only too willing to go down the road of shoot first ask questions later,” would seem to imply.
And ya know, that first post of yours today, GawnFishin’, looked pretty reasonable and well thought out. But when you say things like:
you have abandoned what was once a rational position. When considering a total disarming of the law-abiding public, does one not have to weigh the costs against the benefits? And the cost of a single accidental shooting death (or however many there are in the U.S. every year) most likely does not outweigh the lives saved by personal defensive gun use. If you disarm the law-abiding and peaceful populace to eliminate accidental shooting deaths, you are then condemning a whole other large group of people to a terrifying and violent end.
As laudable a goal as it may be to end all shooting deaths by whatever means necessary, it’s a position that can only be argued in the abstract. We have to deal with issues in the concrete, real world. Guns are here. Wishing them away solves nothing. Arguing the beauty of a fanstasy world, while it might be fun, isn’t terribly useful. Nor is it terribly interesting, because there is no way to counter such fantastic arguments.
Ah, but there is the rub? Where do you stop? If a life is lost unnecessarily because a neighbor’s dog attacked someone, do we ban all dogs? Face it, the primary reason anyone would own a dog is protection. If one life is lost due to overdose of aspirin, do we ban the drug for everyone? Do you ban swords? Clubs? Teeth? All can be used offensively; all can kill. If possession of a weapon is ipso facto proof of intent/ability/desire to kill, then why do we allow martial-arts classes? These people are just training so they can become weapons and hurt their fellow man! :eek:
As for the police…I am better trained in the use of firearms than any cop I know, and I was trained by cops. I have competed in firearm competitions. I target shoot. I fire several thousand more rounds a year than the averge cop does in training in a decade. Do I trust an under-trained officer with no moral or legal obligation to come to my aid with my life? I don’t think so.
As for the “Better a dead lion than a live dog” approach…well. I’d rather be a live lion, TYVM. YMMV.
I, too, would like to commend GawnFishin’ for injecting some rational discussion into this thread on the side of the OP.
Yes!
Yes, your right of course but, I would rather a trained professional make a legitimate mistake than a rank amateur make a monumental f#ck up. Get my point.
Why would you not try to evade the situation altogether, rather than say spending money on a gun how about a security system. Know your property, god I’d love someone to chase me around my place it would be truely hilarious. Or do you use the thinking I’m a man I don’t run from anything? Apart from the life of my wife and child there is nothing anyone could possibly take away from me that I couldn’t replace.
The fact you would feel the need to take your gun to a neighbours house is indeed scary. Sure, call the police but please leave the gun at home big guy.
Aren’t there ways of defending ones self without needing to have a gun though? Aren’t we a better society than this? Don’t we value life a little more than we value an annoying little thing such as a right to carry a weapon?
Your welcome, it is an interesting debate and fun, while I may not necessarily be right, I don’t think I’m totally wrong neither.
Thank you, I felt the topic was important enough that the discussion needed a little shall we say ‘balance’ :D. I feel that while iamme99 had the right idea about guns and society, I think he was way off track when he made the Iraqi conection. This is a problem society will, I feel eventually have to deal with, if our species is to have a viable future. I feel the same way about Finance and Economics also but that’s another thread.
A security system isn’t mobile. But if we’re limiting the places where we might have to defend ourselves to our own property, I live in a 600 sq ft apartment. Not a lot of places to run and hide.
However, having just taken the Ohio CCW course required prior to the issuance of a CCW license, if a permit holder is anywhere but his home (in his home, he need not retreat, but the rest of the following conditions still apply), he is required by law to make an attempt to retreat before brandishing his weapon. Failure to do so is punishable by law. The CCW holder must also clearly be the aggrieved party and innocent of escalating the incident. Failure to meet these conditions before brandishing his weapon is also punishable by law. And the mandatory punishments are quite harsh.
Great. We’re back to this again. iamme99 tried this angle before with no success. What methods do you suggest? And what reasonable chance of success do you think you have against an armed attacker? Pepper spray, or karate, ain’t gonna cut it against a thug with a .38.
Some people do indeed highly value life. Including their own. We can’t help it if you don’t value your own as highly. Why should be be deprived the opportunity to protect ourselves, simply because you don’t feel it necessary to provide yourself with that opportunity? And once again, before you tell me of the risk gun owners are forcing upon innocent people, let me remind you, the people carrying guns legally are not the threat you imagine. That millions of CCW holders are going armed everyday with very, very few problems resulting from their actions, is evidence of this.
But some of those who own guns have better training than the police. Remember, we are not advocating that criminals be allowed to own guns. And I don’t know of anyone advocating a right to carry a gun without completing some sort of training. What I am saying is that your characterization of gun owners as "rank amateur"s may be mistaken. Just as your idea that people are likely to fly off the handle may be mistaken.
Nothing like this is going on. I am not on any macho trip or anything. I have not advocated standing and fighting when other alternatives are available. If I may suggest, this may be another stereotype overly used bu anti gun advocates which you may have picked up.
Ok, but if you look carefully at what I said, I was agreeing with this sentiment. I specifically said that I should not do such a thing.
This is a post that has nothing to do with “more people are killed in the US by guns than the world combined” or "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. There are no statistics, and no cites. Just my thoughts about the Constitution and the rights it protects.
[soapbox] The 2nd Amendment is a written guarantee by the Federal Government of the United States that it will not take away the citizens’ right to protect themselves. Simple as that. The founding fathers knew nothing of assault weapons or homicide rates that would come 200 years later, and it doesn’t matter one little bit. Nor is the lack of Indians, wild bears, or any other 18th century threat a factor.
Why? Because the gun crime that IS the issue here is a violent act between individual citizens, and not between the the body of citizens called “the people” and the body known as the Federal Government.
The Bill of Rights is about protecting “the people” against the government, not from each other. The government can not to tell you what to say, what to believe, imprison you without due process, or any other personal freedom. It’s a contract, a written guarantee, that those things can’t happen, at least not legally. (Even though it does happen, it gives the citizens and the courts a basis from which to argue against it when it does.)
This is not paranoid delusion – protection from the government is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, because they WERE the government. They knew exactly how corrupt and oppressive people could be when given power over other people. They knew that unarmed people were at the mercy of people who had weapons, and that throughout history it was always the government who had force on their side. So they put it in black and white that the Federal Government was going to give the power to the citizens instead of the other way around. The idea that guns in the hand of private citizens won’t be able to stand up to the forces of the federal government wasn’t an issue. The 2nd Amendment, in fact, ALL of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are a guarantee that scenario will never come to pass.
I realize that this entire post does nothing to solve the problems of gun crimes and the ridiculously high numbers of shooting deaths and injuries in the United States. It’s just to point out that repealing the 2nd Amendment is not the answer. You should NOT alter the Bill of Rights because the citizens can’t behave toward each other.
Otherwise, you should avoid the middleman and demand a Constitutional amendment against murder.
Please don’t mess with the Constitution. It’s not the solution.
[/soapbox]
Thanks for reading my high-minded, long-winded theory on Constitutional law!
EZ
They darn well knew about personal protection, and about crime, and that is why Jefferson always walked about Wash DC with his 2 handguns.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man”. Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria
I still have wild bears to deal with. One tried to break into my shed 3 weekends ago. Bears break into houses a couple of times a year where I live.
I would only shoot an animal, be it four leg or two as a last option. The bear went away on his own.
I keep thinking of the old adage don’t bring a gun to a knife fight.
Some folks in this thread have suggested other ways to defend yourself. Swords. SWORDS? If someone broke into my house with a sword, or a knife or a baseball bat, rock or their bare hands, I want a gun. I don’t really care how they are armed.
Swords. :rolleyes:.
For myself, I enjoy shooting. Being able to protect myself is an added bonus.
But the public is a group of individuals. If one member of the public (an individual) is in danger, then the police will respond. Or are you saying police will only respond if there are a plurality of individuals in a group?
And I contend that your viewpoint is based on assumption. If the penalties are strong enough, then few will want to take the chance of getting caught with a gun.