The Number One Reason Free People Should Be Armed Is...

Great Debates
61

I guess I don’t quite understand this. I’m going to have a rifle in my home for self protection. Yet I am going to keep this gun under lock and key and store the ammo in a different location under lock and key? If that’s what it takes to make your gun “accident proof” then there is really no need to have the gun in the house to begin with. By the time I get up (because I have the picture in my mind that if someone were going to break in it would be at night) unlock the cabinet the gun is in, go in another room and unlock the ammo draw and load the gun, what’s the point? I’m already dead.
My gun is for protection not for looks. And yes you are probably right it may not be completely safe but it makes me feel safer.

“Do or do not, there is no try” - Yoda

62

Thanks for the link, Max. You were saying:

Since ‘violent crimes’, in these stats, include everything from murder down to simple assault, that’s what you’d expect. There are a lot more instances of somebody beating somebody else up than of murder or rape. Specifically, 6.9 million of the 8.1 million violent crimes were assaults, as opposed to rapes, robberies, etc.

I note that under the heading, “Murder in the United States, 1998”, the DOJ summary read:

63

BigDaddyD wrote

I am no gun nut, but I have to take issue with this view of the historical context of the 2nd Amendment.

The colonists had a professional army, too. The British Army. The problem was that the British government was using that army against its own citizens (the colonists).

The 2nd Amendment was intended to provide the citizens of the U.S. with a hedge against government oppression. Thus, if the U.S. government ever turned its guns on the citizenry (the way the British government had) the citizens would have a means to defend themselves.

Now, you may say that it’s ridiculous to believe that the U.S. government would ever behave in such a manner. Well, right now, we have the luxury of a strong economy and general prosperity, and a more or less thriving republic; but I can envision a possible future in which the U.S., gripped by economic crisis, gives rise to a despotic ruler. Impossible? Hey, it happened in Germany, didn’t it? I’m not saying such a scenario is likely, only that it is within the realm of possibility. I think the founding fathers also envisioned such a possibility, and intended the 2nd Amendment as a protection against it.

Oh yes, and to correct another inaccuracy in this thread: It has been suggested by some posters that the Bill of Rights “gives” or “grants” us rights as citizens. That’s not the way the founding fathers viewed it. They believed human beings have “natural rights”, some of which were specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights (lest any doubted their existence). However, they were careful to say that the list contained in the Bill of Rights was not intended to be exhaustive. Check out the 9th Amendment, which spells this out.

“Every time you think, you weaken the nation!” --M. Howard (addressing his brother, C. Howard).

64

Adolf Hitler’s election was legal and proper. Does that mean that a U.S. politician can deveolop a “personality cult” and take control over everything? Probably not.

People have pointed out that gun violence has declined in the past decade. I don’t believe that this is because of gun control. I think it is because the economy is booming. People who are not desperate tend not to be violent. Educated people tend to be less violent than uneducated ones. IMO, [BOLD]education[/BOLD] is the key to ending violence. A better education means a person can get a better job. But it’s easier to pass a bunch of meaningless and/or unenforcable laws than it is to solve the problem.

As for guns “only being designed to injure or kill”, I do own a couple so-called “assault rifles”. I have no intention of using them against any living thing. I mearly enjoy shooting them. They’re fun.

But what IS an “assault rifle”? By definition, it is a rifle capable of firing semi-automatically (one shot per pull of the trigger) or automatically (multiple shots per pull of the trigger: “machine gun”). These have been regulated since the 1920s and require A) a background check by the federal government; B) a hefty transfer fee; C) residence in a state that allows them (very few of those).

Okay, so I have a “semi-automatic assaut rifle” (shown to be an oxymoron). These were banned in CA a long time ago and I had to register it with the state in order to legally keep it. What makes my AR-15 different from my not-banned Ruger Mini-14? Well, the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle capable of holding large-capacity magazines (also “banned”, especially in CA). The Ruger, on the other hand, is a SEMI-automatic rifle capable of using large-capacity MAGAZINES. See the difference? The point is that laws are arbitrary. One thing that makes the Ruger not an “assault rifle” is that it doesn’t have a bayonet lug. Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a criminal attacking someone with a fixed bayonet? Absurd!

Guns are not the problem. We have plenty of laws to remove them from the hands of people who mis-use them. Safety education has reduced the number of accidents to their lowest number ever. Jobs have taken a lot of the incentive from committing crimes.

Good primary and secondary education (including critical thinking and philosophy early on) and a living wage are the keys to reducing violence. [BOLD]Build schools, not prisons![/BOLD]

I support everyone’s right to choose not to own a firearm. Please respect my right to do as I choose.

65

RT> Since ‘violent crimes’, in these stats, include everything from
RT> murder down to simple assault, that’s what you’d expect. There are
RT> a lot more instances of somebody beating somebody else up than of
RT> murder or rape. Specifically, 6.9 million of the 8.1 million
RT> violent crimes were assaults, as opposed to rapes, robberies, etc.

So, you agree with me that it is better to address the problem of violence itself rather than attacking one instrument of violence?

Murders do not often occur because a normally law-abiding citizen flies into a rage and has a gun handy. Over 75% of all murders are committed by adults with an average of a six-year or longer criminal record and four felony convictions. Of the remaining 25% of murderers, half are juveniles, who resultantly have no adult criminal record. There are already laws regulating or forbidding the purchase and possession of firearms by convicted felons.

Furthermore, in one homicide study, in 90% of domestic homicides, the police had been called to the address of the homicide at least once within the previous two years; the median number of calls to the address during the previous two years was five. Source for all statistics: http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_control_tennmed.html

Given this, how will allowing guns to be owned by the general population (like it or not, most people are law-abiding) increase violent crime? We need to enforce the laws already on the books, not make it harder for the average citizen to arm himself.

RT> I note that under the heading, “Murder in the United States, 1998”,
RT> the DOJ summary read:
RT> Firearms are used in about 70% of murders.

They must have rounded up; another source, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/98cius.htm (page 18) states that guns were used in 65% of homicides. Furthermore, the hated evil icky handgun accounts for 52% of homicides. If a person is intent on murder, they’ll find a way.

Disarming the population will NOT decrease the murder rate; rather, it will create a society of victims incapable of lawfully defending themselves.

66

I don’t think it should be an either/or, but rather a both/and.

FWIW, I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of those weaponless assaults in my life. It was unfortunate that they happened, but I’d rather have been the victim of a hundred of those than of one assault with a gun. I don’t run fast enough to get away from bullets, and it takes quite a few punches to add up to one bullet.

Given Australia’s example, which Tom has cited above, there’s reason to believe that wouldn’t be the case.

Although I’d personally expect a spike of criminal activity immediately after the ban, followed by a steady decrease. Criminals and their guns would gradually get caught and confiscated, respectively, and smuggling guns in from abroad would be a lot more difficult than smuggling guns into D.C from Virginia.

67

I don’t mean to stray from the subject at hand, however it was quoted the DOJ stat that 70% of murders are the result of a gun.

According to the stats that would be a total of 12,747 people murdered by a firearm in 1997.

While in the same period, 16,189 people died from alcohol related traffic accidents. ( http://www.madd.org )41,967 total traffic fatalities for the same year. It’s time to ban cars and reinstate prohibition.

=====

As for other stats, I went to another part of the web site, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm

Statistically, gang related gun murders top any other gun related murders. In almost all news reports I have seen or heard, these gang members use illegally purchased(black market) weapons.

If the murder by weapon rate is higher with illegal guns, then you have nothing to fear when it comes to the average neighbor owning a firearm, assuming he isn’t involved in a gang.

68

RT> FWIW, I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of those
RT> weaponless assaults in my life. It was unfortunate that they
RT> happened, but I’d rather have been the victim of a hundred of those
RT> than of one assault with a gun. I don’t run fast enough to get away
RT> from bullets, and it takes quite a few punches to add up to one
RT> bullet.

When you were assaulted, did you wish you had a gun?

I hope to God I never have to fire a gun at a human being. But I recognize that simply showing a gun can greatly deter a potential assailant.

RT> Although I’d personally expect a spike of criminal activity
RT> immediately after the ban, followed by a steady decrease. Criminals
RT> and their guns would gradually get caught and confiscated,
RT> respectively, and smuggling guns in from abroad would be a lot more
RT> difficult than smuggling guns into D.C from Virginia.

I’ll type slower: there are already laws against persons with a criminal history owning guns. Let’s do a hypothetical: gun sales, carrying, and even ownership are outlawed. How does this affect the population?

Non-criminal citizens: can no longer own a gun without being a criminal. Will follow the law and be left with no means of defense.

Criminal citizens (which, I remind you, are responsible for between 75% and 88% of gun homicides): no change. Buying, carrying and owning were illegal before the ban went into effect. Business as usual.

So what has the hypothetical new law accomplished?

We need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

69

Techchick…you kick ass.

If you’re ever in Lubbock, let’s hit the Circle Star shooting range and rattle off a few, K?

70

I think you may be drawing too close a parallel between the Australian experiment and what would happen in the U.S.

Remember what happened in Prohibition? Look around – see what a great job we’re doing with the cocaine trade? You think it would be hard to smuggle guns; I think, based on the past, that it would be eas. What’s more, it would extremely profitable for anyone with the cajones to do it. Australia is an island continent, so the Pacific ocean makes a great ‘border’.

Furthermore, the tradition of gun ownership runs very much deeper than the Australian one. Besides, back when I underwent a diametric change of opinion on the subject, I began doing a little research into gunsmithing. Right now in my library, I have the plans for a .30 caliber full-auto machine pistol which can be ‘cobbled together’ with pieces from any good hardware store and auto parts place, with machines no more complex than the bench grinder and drill press I have in my shop. All that would happen is that a ‘cottage industry’ of closet gunsmiths would arise.

As for BigDaddy – I think you must have dozed off during American history, bub. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? (It was a rebellion because it was put down; it would have been the Whiskey Revolution otherwise.) Ever hear of the Palmer Raids? Do you recall what happened to the Bonus Marchers?

Thank you fer yer support!

71

Italics mine.

Although I am generally on the pro-gun side of things, I feel I must object to this.

The only reason why you should be drawing and displaying your weapon is if you intend to use it (Mas Ayoob paraphrased, Lethal Force Institute and several books). Displaying your gun simply ups the ante of the conflict.
What it brings to the table at that point is a lot of chaos. If the assailant is armed themselves they may simply attack out of need for reputation (strange but true) or because they misinterpret your drawing as an intent to fire and, in essence, are firing in perceived self defense, even though they started the whole thing in the first place. Of course, they may flee, which is what you want. Keep in mind as a law-abiding citizen the criminal has a mental edge over you, especially if he is armed. He has the “aggressors” (as opposed to defensive) mindset. There is a good chance he has predetermined in his own mind that he is willing to hurt or kill you. If you (I mean general you here) haven’t developed the defensive mindset in return you are at a heavy disadvantage (see “Strong on Defense”, “Real Fighting”, and “The Ayoob Files”, for further details on the force continuum and defensive mindset… also Ayoob is coming out with a new book “The Truth About Self Protection”, I have it on pre-order, I’ll post on MPSIMS when I get it and if it is good).

If they are unarmed again they will not perceive themselves at a disadvantage at may panic. This panic could cause them to attack, which will then force you to kill an unarmed assailant (it doesn’t take much imagination to think of the legal ramifications of that). Or, of course, they could flee, which again is what you want.
However, in both cases, the odds are in favor of the criminal NOT backing down and either continue the “interview” (again see books above, esp. “Real Fighting”). This is very bad for the defender.

You should only draw and fire your weapon if the situation requires it. Otherwise, keep your weapon hidden (this doesn’t mean you cannot prepare to draw and fire, of course, which is the recommended course of action).

All the “you”'s above are the general you, and not MaxTorque personally.

And now back to your reguarly scheduled thread…

72

< blush> thanks Max!

BTW I have family in Lubbock.

=====

It seems to me that if you outlaw guns, based on the stats link I provided you only open up the black market for illegal firearms ownership.

As I have stated before, I don’t own a gun. But I hold dear, the right to own one. As I hold dear the right to free speech, the freedom to practice a religion and to separate that from government etc.

Our founding fathers saw need for this document and we should heed the words of the Declaration of Independence as well, as history tends to repeat its self. http://www.ourconstitution.com/DecIndtxt.html

I have wanted for a long time, to do a statement by statement comparison by which our own government has committed similar offenses that the British monarchy had committed against the 13 colonies. Mind you I am not one of those extremists that live in the mountains governed by my own government, but I do believe that as each day passes our rights as outlined in the Constitution are being trampled on every day, not just gun laws.

Well, time to go watch football with my father.

73

G> The only reason why you should be drawing and displaying your weapon
G> is if you intend to use it (Mas Ayoob paraphrased, Lethal Force
G> Institute and several books). Displaying your gun simply ups the
G> ante of the conflict. What it brings to the table at that point is a
G> lot of chaos. If the assailant is armed themselves they may simply
G> attack out of need for reputation (strange but true) or because they
G> misinterpret your drawing as an intent to fire and, in essence, are
G> firing in perceived self defense, even though they started the whole
G> thing in the first place. Of course, they may flee, which is what
G> you want. Keep in mind as a law-abiding citizen the criminal has a
G> mental edge over you, especially if he is armed. He has the
G> “aggressors” (as opposed to defensive) mindset. There is a good
G> chance he has predetermined in his own mind that he is willing to
G> hurt or kill you. If you (I mean general you here) haven’t developed
G> the defensive mindset in return you are at a heavy disadvantage (see
G> “Strong on Defense”, “Real Fighting”, and “The Ayoob Files”, for
G> further details on the force continuum and defensive mindset… also
G> Ayoob is coming out with a new book “The Truth About Self
G> Protection”, I have it on pre-order, I’ll post on MPSIMS when I get
G> it and if it is good).
G>
G> If they are unarmed again they will not perceive themselves at a
G> disadvantage at may panic. This panic could cause them to attack,
G> which will then force you to kill an unarmed assailant (it doesn’t
G> take much imagination to think of the legal ramifications of that).
G> Or, of course, they could flee, which again is what you want.
G> However, in both cases, the odds are in favor of the criminal NOT
G> backing down and either continue the “interview” (again see books
G> above, esp. “Real Fighting”). This is very bad for the defender.
G>
G> You should only draw and fire your weapon if the situation requires
G> it. Otherwise, keep your weapon hidden (this doesn’t mean you cannot
G> prepare to draw and fire, of course, which is the recommended course
G> of action).

I think you and I have different definitions of “show”. I mean “have in hand”, not “point at the other person(s)”. Unquestionably, you should never point a gun, even a gun you know to be unloaded, at anything you do not intend to kill.

However, for examples of the kind of “showing” I had in mind, check out http://www.mackido.com/Politics/GunExperiences.html Three stories involving a gun in hand, pointing it at no one, to defuse conflict.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Glitch, I should have been clearer.

74

“If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns” - it’s obviously true, but utterly pointless outside a context.

If guns are outlawed - AND you live in a country where laws are generally upheld, like most Western European countries - a criminal might as well be wearing a badge saying “Arrest me!” as a gun. Smart criminals tend to realize that this is not a good career move. Stupid criminals don’t, get arrested and are out of circulation.

It might just be cultural thing, of course - in Europe, we still have people around who remembers what it’s like to have a war fought in your own country and what it does to society when power indeed does grow out of a rifle muzzle.

Norman.

Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.

75

The person who wrote that page is very knowledgeable about self defense (I think we read the same books, and maybe went to the same workshops). It sounds like he is applying his current knowledge into the past (it seems unlikely a teen would have that kind of in depth knowledge of self defense, which is when the first two stories took place), but there’s nothing wrong with that. I do it all the time to, in order to illustrate things I did right or wrong in the past before I knew better.

One very important thing of note:

Story #3: Note, that he only draws the gun when he sees a perceived weapon AND the assailant starts to advance, and not just upon seeing a possible weapon.

76

No. Not then, and not now. I don’t want to shoot holes in someone who beat me up good, especially when that was clearly the worst possible outcome.

I’ll be away from my Web access until Thursday or Friday; if this thread is still alive then, I’ll be back to hold up my end of the discussion.

77

Excuse me, Firefly, but have you had your skull checked for residual softness from the attack? I was trying to think of exactly how to frame my response, when it occurred to me: just imagine your last sentence as the epitaph they put on your headstone. :frowning: :eek:

"You’ll never get as much out of being right as you will from finding out why you were wrong . . . " The Papoon Principles Ch. 1.

78

Maybe my head isn’t as hard as RTFirefly’s.

I just don’t think I could take all thos beatings :slight_smile:

OK, but seriously. What about women and the elderly(60-70).

They do not have the capacity to defend them selves, or take a good beating like you have. Would you deny them the opportunity to be able to defend themselves?

It may be an option for you to take the beating and then just lie on the floor feeling happy that you sacrificed yourself to save their lives. But I tell you right now that I would rather have 50 dead rapists than have my girlfriend raped.

100… 500… 1000…

There is no number of dead rapists and murderers that I would give up my own life for. Now maybe you are talking about a bar brawl or something, but in a street situation with assailants you don’t know, I would prefer to be armed than on my knees begging for my life.

79

According to the Center for Disease Control, there were more suicides than homicides by firearms in 1997, the most recent year for which statistics are available: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs_47.19.pdf (Yes, you need Adobe Acrobat to read it.)

According to Table B on Page 5, of the fifteen leading causes of death, suicide came in at #8, while “homicide and Legal Intervention” came in at #13.

In 1997, there were a total of 32,436 deaths by firearm. This was broken down thusly:

Suicides-- 17,566
Homicides-- 13,522 (includes legal intervention)
Accidents-- 981
Injury-- 367 (whether deliberate or accidental could not be determined)

I was rather stunned that there were more suicides than homicides. I found this after reading an article in the Los Angeles Daily News.

Question: How do we fix it so fewer people commit suicide by gun?

Unfortunately, I’ve just run out of time. I’ll be back tomorrow.

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

80

jab1:

This is easy! Just make all gun barrels about 7 feet long! :wink:

To paraphrase Chris Rock, we don’t need gun control, we need bullet control. We could easily reduce gun violence without banning guns. Simply make all bullets cost like $5000.

There would be no more innocent bystanders. Everytime someone got shot they would say “He must have done something! They put $50,000 worth of bullets in him!”

You would really have to hate someone to shoot them! “Man, I would kill you… if I could afford it! You better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway!” :smiley: :stuck_out_tongue: :cool: :eek: