Guys, this is exactly the sort of thread that can go off the rails and end up in the Pit. It’s heated, fast moving and a hot button issue.
Let’s just all of us keep our heads and remain polite, shall we?
This X1000.
XT, to pivot away from our other conversation for a moment – I definitely think we agree on more than we disagree here. You are definitely not a gun nut, and you do seem to realize that a gun doesn’t make you invincible, and that you’re better off avoiding confrontation than trying to be a “good guy with a gun”. In fact, you’re probably a very responsible gun owner.
Aside from the semantics of “what is a right”, I think what it comes down to is this. I come from Israel, a country where gun ownership is much more limited (despite popular belief in pro-gun circles), and much fewer people are even interested in guns in the first place.
In Israel, you can only get a gun after asking the state for a license, and providing a reason why you should be allowed to have one; a permit only allows you to own a single gun and no more than 50 bullets, which you can only replace as you fire or dispose of them. All guns are strictly tracked, and you need government approval to sell or transfer a firearm. And the people who own these guns aren’t buying them for “self defense” – they’re almost universally buying them because their job requires a gun.
So to me, treating gun ownership as a “right” on par with the right to free speech, or the right to a fair trial, or the right to not be detained by the government – that’s just ridiculous, and I’ve never heard an argument that even slightly tipped the scale. So if you’ve got one, I’d love to hear it.
NM…the mods have rightfully spoken, so no more beating of dead equines.
Plus, just shooting it would be easier. 
Hold up – I think you’re totally misunderstanding my point – I did see your post before the edit but regardless – I think you’re under the impression that I want a president to declare that today, Feb 13, 2019, we are declaring a war on guns, and taking everyone’s gun by force.
That’s absolutely not it. I want the second amendment repealed the right way, through the proper constitutional channels. After all, the constitution was never meant to be held in this reverent light that we seem to hold it in – it was meant to be a living, changing document. And you’re right, that’s something we’ve done before, and need to do again.
If that can’t happen, at least the courts can interpret the amendment as written – without totally ignoring the first half.
You’re right, my personal feelings about the second amendment – that it’s ridiculous and barbaric, not that you asked – are not how policy is made. But like you, or anyone else, I can vote according to my view, for politicians who agree with it.
Just to briefly respond and hopefully not set the mods off, the thing is that our system is different from yours. Of course you don’t take our rights seriously…why should you, you aren’t American. We have a process, however, and part of that process is how to modify, change or even get rid of rights. Even the core rights can be altered or removed by the process. So, no, they aren’t set in stone, forever unchanging…our system doesn’t work that way. But, by the same token, it’s not an easy thing to do, nor should it be. If enough Americans really want change, it will change. If not…not. And right now, something like half or more Americans don’t want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.
I don’t, personally own a gun, nor do I intend too. I’m in favor of people having a choice for that, but I wouldn’t freak out if, collectively, we decided not to have a personal right to keep and bear arms anymore as well. I’d probably be more upset if we, collectively decided not to have a right to freedom of speech anymore, to be honest. But, IMHO, we have a process, and we should use it. What really sets me off on this subject is when people try and go around the process because, frankly, they know they can’t get what they want using that process, as the majority of their fellow citizens don’t agree with them.
Anyway, I feel I’ve hijacked things enough. WRT OP I’ve already given my 2 cents (and a bargain at double the price!). I was going to post some about being prepared, to some folks who feel like they don’t even need to think about this sort of thing, but I don’t feel like preaching anymore today so I’ll bow out unless there is anything specific and interesting that comes up.
Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. I noticed that in the cases where the homeowner successfully defended themselves from the attacker, they used a weapon (crossbow, shovel, butcher knife). It’s too bad more of the rapist’s victims weren’t armed.
At this point, I’ve lived in America longer than anywhere else, and I’ve married an American. Didn’t we all come from somewhere else, or at least, our relatively recent ancestors? Unless you’re a native american As it happens, I was also born in the US – we moved when I was a year old, though. Not that any of this is relevant – but where I grew up certainly colors my view of gun rights.
I agree with this 100%. I think Americans need to wake up and realize that guns do more harm then good to them. I will campaign to show people this, and I will vote for politicians who accept this fact rather than being bought and paid for by the NRA. I will do what I can to “be the change I wish to see in the world”, because I’m really goddamn tired of kids murdering each other at schools because of our gun policy.
Whether this process involves a supermajority in Congress that repeals the 2nd amendment, or a shift in the views of our highest courts as social changes occur that lead them to make a ruling that’s more in line with my view, or something completely different – I don’t know. What I do know, is that we have a serious problem in this country.
Again, I really don’t think our views are all THAT different. Might just be the limitations of text as a means of communication – and the way we tend to read hostility into posts that disagree with us, even if not originally intended, and reply in kind. Human nature, I guess – that’s why I’m against humans having guns
In all the instances I mentioned every attacker was male and the victim female, except for one male victim who was disabled. And that’s the kicker - weapons are a leveler between young, strong, healthy male human and other categories (female, disabled, elderly, etc.). But “weapon” is not just a firearm.
I’m quite an advocate of good self-defense training, which is not just about how to use a weapon but how to avoid trouble, what to do if you can’t avoid trouble, evade/hide/fight options, and so forth.
I took tae kwon do for several years when I was a teenager. My instructor would regularly get asked, “what’s the best move if someone comes at you with a knife (or a gun)?” His preferred answer was “the thousand-step move,” which he would then illustrate by turning and sprinting.
That’s my feeling as well. I’d try and run or hide even if I was standing next to the gun cabinet with key in hand when the break-in occurred. Fighting is the absolute last resort.
In the country where I live, it is much easier to get a permit for guns that will be kept strictly at home, than for guns to carry outside the home.
This page has some stats. “Household members faced an offender with a firearm in about 12% of all households burglarized while someone was home and violence occurred.” I think that works out to 32,000 incidents annually — in quite the same ballpark as the number of Americans injured annually by lightning. In 65% of burglaries which turned violent, the burglar was known to the victim(s)!
This could be fun! Let’s start some new threads:
Question for anti UHC people? severe colitis? you’ve been denied insurance; how do you do surgery on yourself?
Question for anti-gun control people? cop asks for driver’s license then shoots you because your cell-phone looks like a gun, and he knows gun possession is as American as apple pie. Can you get 911 to send an ambulance before you bleed out?
Add to this list? Sounds like great fun!
I believe this claim hinges rather heavily on what you count as “a good thing” happening with a gun. In the vast majority of defensive gun uses, the firearm is not discharged.
As a silly sidebar, ~1/3 lightning-related injuries occur indoors.
So, finally I know where Imperial Stormtroopers were recruited.
Are you strong enough to raise a 2 oz can of pepper spray and push the button? I doubt my son could handle the recoil after firing any pistol.
In those defensive uses, how often do they know the gun was necessary? For example, someone messing with the car in your driveway may have left just as easily by saying “Hey!” as “Hey! I have a gun and aren’t afraid to use it!” Of course, the homeowner won’t know ahead of time, but it can inflate the successful defensive gun use numbers since the success would have happened with or without the gun.
Smith and Wesson’s Sesame Street brand has an adorable .22 single shot.
I don’t think that’s a question they ask in the surveys, and I don’t think there’s any way we could expect them to know if it was “necessary” or not. Absent some mechanism for exploring alternate universes, I don’t know how we’d ever know definitively whether a firearm was strictly necessary or not. I’m curious though, where you’d draw the line on “necessary”:
If someone could survive an incident without injury with a gun, but without a gun they’d still survive the incident with moderate injuries, would you say the firearm was “necessary”?
What about if their physical injuries would only be very light? Was a gun “necessary” then?
What about if their injuries in the no-gun-to-defend-themselves scenario were severe and life-altering? “necessary” then?
nm…