A lot of things kill people. Cheeseburgers, for instance. Cars. Coal fired power plants. Tooth picks. Alcohol. The list is nearly endless.
-XT
There are lots of better pro-gun arguments than this one. Many rural people don’t lock their doors: most urban people use a dead-bolt. But so what? This doesn’t imply that urban dwellers require bazookas to protect themselves or even handguns.
I don’t own a firearm: I see no need.
“Over time” indeed. How long do you think it would take? Heroin and cocaine somehow manage to make their way into this country–you think guns won’t as well? Also, during the period of “over time,” millions of law-abiding Americans will either (i) have no practical way of defending their homes and families or (ii) be forced to break the law, all because you think guns are icky and gross.
Ah, so it’s the hit-man type movies you’ve seen too much, not the westerns. Look, I have a gun to defend myself against the very unlikely threat of someone breaking into my house. If that someone turns out to be a professional hit man that does not trip the alarm, has his gun drawn, and is ready to shoot, then I’m dead. But that little scenario of your doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun to protect myself from non-hitman threats.
The similarity is in your approach to the issue. You think guns are icky just like many anti-SSM folks thing gay sex is icky. You want all guns to disappear just like many anti-SSM folks want homosexuality to disappear. You think you can make it go away by making them illegal, just like they do.
The fact that you see no need has no bearing on my ownership of a gun. It doesn’t mean that I should similarly see no need.
You replied to a comment that I intended as parenthetical. The point was that it is entirely reasonable to lock your door and not be so frightened as to own a bazooka, AK47, rifle or concealable handgun. As you said, opinions differ as does risk assessment.
My point was narrow, and it appears that you agree.
Another parenthetical comment: not only is home invasion a de minimus risk (burglary is another matter) but there are far greater hazards than homicide. Examples include car accidents, lung cancer and diseases associated with obesity and lack of exercise. All that said (and again parenthetically), I withhold comment on the advisability of female ownership of firearms.
Ok. I was just responding to the fact that your post focused on what people require and need. The right to bear arms is not contingent on your (or anyone’s) perception of a need to do so.
Also, what’s up with the bolded part above?
I would suppose that at those rare times when one needs a handgun, the need is rather great and few things would make an adequate substitute.
When confronted with a hostile and agressive unicorn, it is a good thing to be a virgin. Otherwise, not so much.
I don’t arm myself out of fear and I doubt most gun owners do. I have a gun in case some meth head or whoever feels like barging into my house to threaten me or steal from me.
I’m not a danger to anyone unless they invade my home and I don’t care if they have no intention of hurting me. They aren’t allowed to steal my plasma tv either.
Make my day.
I am dodging the legal and policy issues. There are plenty of posters willing to discuss that.
I’m confining my attention to the narrower question of individual risk assessment. Females face a different set of mortality and trauma risks than guys do, so I’d like to separate out the issues. For most western males though, I have doubts about the utility of a firearm for enhancing life expectancy, though it clearly is a product with some emotional import.
Let’s see…
I’ve used guns to kill feral animals on a farm that were endangering or attacking livestock and other farm animals.
I’ve used guns to frighten off people intend on breaking into my house when they knew I was there. (Five separate times)
I’ve displayed a firearm to disuade two young men from mugging me in an isolated wayside rest.
I carried a firearm as an armed guard for two years. Hell yes, the gun is a necessity, or we’d have been robbed on a regular basis.
I’m pretty sure that, on one of my last nights as an armed guard, I could not have successfully convinced a group of 18 young people, four of whom were violent (overturning tables and throwing stuff) to leave a place without incident or further violence, if I had been completely unarmed and simply asking politely. No, I didn’t pull out my gun and I didn’t threaten anyone. But it was the presence of that gun that convinced them that it was probably best to do what I told them to do - don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
None of these things had anything to do with fearing “society” or any other bullshit you want to throw out. Don’t project your irrational fear on other people as a way of justifying it.
Wishful thinking about people playing nice if only some big bad THING didn’t exist tends to drive Humans to extreme solutions that are much worse in the long run.
This makes it sound like you value your plasma TV over some miscreant’s life. It’s not an unusual stance, but it doesn’t inspire confidence in your argument that you’re not a danger to anyone.
I don’t value my plasma TV over the miscreants life.
However, I value my safety over the miscreants life, and by invading my home you’ve violated my safety. I don’t know your intentions when you break into my home. I do know that you’ve violated my, and societies, trust to the point where you’re actively engaging in an activity which potentially threatens my personal safety.
ETA: I wont go out looking for someone in my house, but if you come into my room I will not wait to determine whether you are or are not a threat, I will assume you are by the very fact that you broke into an occupied house and obviously weren’t satisfied with the belongings in the common areas, and you’re venturing into my bedroom.
And, if I had children, I can assure you that my reaction would be different, I would do whatever it took to prevent the nearest possibility of harm from coming to them. If that involved going into the common areas and shooting someone, because I couldn’t protect them from my room, than that’s what I’d do.
I’d say that the danger is limited to the miscreant who chose to break into the house. Unless they announce their intentions upon breaking into the house, one must assume the worst.
This is how I feel as well. If I could push a button and instantly kill any unauthorized person in my home, I would buy that button and push it if need be. A button like that does not exist AFAIK, so I have a gun.
To be clear, I believe that there exist responsible gunowners who value human life over human property. I do not know what Todderbob’s firearm training or procedures are, so I can’t tell whether he has an unacceptably itchy trigger finger, from the viewpoint of Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Buddhist-Hindu morality. I will say that if he believes that the presence of an unexpected visitor in his household makes shooting a gun advisable, then he is courting tragedy.
Ok, so when you weigh trespass against a human life, you choose to extinguish the human life. That goes beyond what gravitycrash said. I’m aware that there are people like you in the world. There are few violent people who can’t point to justifications that lack empirical grounding. All I request is that you obey the law.
5’1? You’re afraid of Michael J. Fox?
Probably because he’s only 5’1. It sounds like he was open carrying, which many believe is far more of a deterrent than concealed carry.
Because nobody could commit crimes with a rifle or shotgun. And long guns can’t be carried concealed in a vehicle or under a long coat. Or carried openly in the woods or at a Presidential appearance.
There are 200+million guns in this country. All the regulation and bans won’t do anything to make anyone any safer. This country was past the point of no return by the early 19th century. We are a gun loving people. My advice is to accept that, deal with it, get over it, and move on to some other boogeyman to be afraid of.
It’s not trespassing, it’s breaking and entering.
There’s a world of difference. One is wandering into a section of woods you thought was yours and was your neighbors, the other is taking a rock, smashing in a window and coming into my fucking house.
Yes, if the trespass is in my house while I am home.
People like me, eh? You mean people that value their own lives and the lives of their family over the life of someone that breaks into their house? I would suspect that people like me are the majority.
Huh?
I do. Thanks for your concern.
Quoth Rand Rover:
Though, when it’s the government exerting the force, you never seem to stop to ask whether it’s justified, just jumping straight to the conclusion that all force is bad.
As to open carrying or displaying of a gun as a deterrent, it can have two effects. On the one hand, it can convince a criminal that they should just pass you by, but on the other hand, if the criminal is for some reason committed, it can convince them that they need to kill you rather than just roughing you up a bit. Sure, you’ll hear plenty of anecdotes from the first category, but there’s a bit of a selection effect there: The folks who get killed because they were openly carrying don’t tell stories about it.