Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<Guns can be displayed as a showpiece(art) permanently over fireplaces too and used for conversational pieces>> Well thank heavens because we all need coversation topics.
Originally Posted By Mr X Actually, going back to my comments about the 2nd amendment and how it's not effective in todays world... Any form of gun control is unconstitutional. Any American has the right to own any weapons available to the military. If you REALLY want to consider freedom and what it means for an ordinary citizen versus the government, and the purpose of the 2nd amendment which is to "level the playing field".
Originally Posted By barboy "Any form of gun control is unconstitutional" It is impossible to agree or disagree with you X since Amendment II is at best vague and at worst nonsensical.
Originally Posted By barboy I should have included the words "at face value" the 2nd Amend. is somewhere between vague and nonsensical.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'd rather the bad guys not know for sure which home in the middle of the night has a gun, and which doesn't, thank you very much.<< I've heard this argument before but there just doesn't seem to be much to back it up. Violent crimes perpetrated against people in their homes by strangers is almost non-existent. But when it does happen it's terrible enough that it gets plenty of press and scares plenty of people. Further, the number of people who successfully protect their homes with guns against stranger-intruders is an even more miniscule number. Yet we're somehow told people need guns for home protection. In reality, violent crime rates have not gone up much at all over the past 20 years, but coverage of them by the news media has gone up by more than 400%. It may not be realistic to eliminate all guns (and not really necessary, even though I personally loathe them), but I have yet to here a good argument for why private citizens need to have them. Want to have them? Sure. Target practice, clay shooting, etc. But the image that people "need" to have them to protect themselves from random crime, or the big bad government that could rise up at any time - I just don't buy it for a second.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I've heard this argument before but there just doesn't seem to be much to back it up. Violent crimes perpetrated against people in their homes by strangers is almost non-existent.<< I think the first sentence is kind of answered to the second sentence there. My point is that it's quite possibly the very uncertainty that someone just might have a weapon to defend themself is the reason that you don't see more of this type of crime. Criminals value their own lives enough not to risk it. When they do, they are usually fairly certain the individual's home they invade are unarmed. I think it should be up to individuals to decide for themselves if they need this type of protection. In other words, that the potential benefits outweight the inherent risks of owning a gun. As to why a private citizen might need one for protection, think about a woman being terrorized by some psycho abusive ex. She has restraining orders against him, etc. A gun may or may not save her, and she may or may not be comfortable owning one. But I think it should be her choice. And I like it that the bad guys are left uncertain.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<As to why a private citizen might need one for protection, think about a woman being terrorized by some psycho abusive ex. She has restraining orders against him, etc. A gun may or may not save her, and she may or may not be comfortable owning one. But I think it should be her choice. And I like it that the bad guys are left uncertain.>> And for every damsel in distress who is saved by the fact that she has the right to have a gun, there are five children whose cousins accidentally shot them to death.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And for every damsel in distress who is saved by the fact that she has the right to have a gun, there are five children whose cousins accidentally shot them to death.<< I'm not discounting that, and one doesn't justify the other. I've said throughout this thread that gun owners need to be held accountable, be properly trained and licensed, and not be idiots about leaving guns accessible to children. I just think the idea of banning all guns is wishful thinking that will never happen, and probably shouldn't, so searching for some reasonable middle ground is the thing to do.
Originally Posted By barboy Who remembers those homeowners down in Louisiana back in the early '90's who shot and killed a Japanese student for just walking into their house? Like I said earlier those gun people can get very paranoid. People who have firearms tend to be quick to violence either as an aggressor or defender. That is why I don't spend time with gun owners.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Criminals value their own lives enough not to risk it. When they do, they are usually fairly certain the individual's home they invade are unarmed.<< In terms of a robbery-type crime, you may be right - I have no idea. But with violent crime, again, I think we're guilty of letting a tiny percentage of incidents influence our thinking. Will a Ted Bundy-type assailant think through who may or may not have a gun? Possibly, maybe even probably. But that's just not even close to how most crimes happen. People are shot in heated moment situations. Two people are in an argument over something stupid - maybe one cut the other one off on the road - and it escalates. Someone pulls out a gun. Maybe they pull the trigger, or maybe they're just trying to be Mr. Tough Guy and scare someone. But then the other person panics and pulls out their gun. These are the kinds of stories I'm reading about in the paper. I'm not reading about John Mark Karr climbing into stranger's bedrooms late at night and getting shot up by super-dad who fortunately had his 9mm around. It just doesn't happen. What it boils down to for me is that human beings are emotional creatures. You get someone scared or panicked, the adrenalin is pumping, the last thing they should have in their hands is a gun. Take this poor woman in Atlanta. The police, in an absolutely appalling display, come breaking down her door after getting reports of drug deals in her home, and she shoots at them and they gun her down. The police screwed up and I hope heads roll. But if she didn't have the gun, she may not be dead today. That's what I see happening with guns - violence caused by panic that gets both innocent and guilty people killed.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's an incident that neatly ties up a couple of hot button issues into one. An illegal immigrant, also a habitual criminal, opened fire on two Long Beach officers last Friday. I had been with the L.B. chief at a dinner the night before, and I also know one of the officers. Fortunately, through good police work, this problem was solved. However, for many of us in this town, it highlights the need to address some issues. <a href="http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_4917393" target="_blank">http://www.presstelegram.com/n ews/ci_4917393</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>These are the kinds of stories I'm reading about in the paper.<< That's true, there are those situations. More of what you read about are gang on gang shootings or shootings in robberies, or people being threatened with a gun during a robbery. I would bet most gun violence is related to drugs in some way (between rival drug dealers, used in robberies to get money for drugs, etc.), far and away more than two guys who get in a beef in traffic. >>What it boils down to for me is that human beings are emotional creatures. You get someone scared or panicked, the adrenalin is pumping, the last thing they should have in their hands is a gun.<< Most case, you're probably right. But sometimes when someone is scared, there is good reason to be. There are real threats out there unfortunately, not just a series of blunders and paranoia. And for people who live in more rural areas, where calling 911 might not be fast enough, what do you do about that? I just don't see how stopping someone who is a law-abiding, responsible gun owner from having a gun legally would do anything to stop criminals from obtaining guns. It might stop some accidental shootings, which would be great, but it might also create even more opportunities for criminals. I do think there should be more controls in place to ensure that more people who choose to own guns are trained, licensed, and fully understand that the responsibilities of owning a gun are far more than just paying for the thing and sticking it under the mattress.
Originally Posted By Ursula I just automatically assumed that the lady in the damsel in distress example didn't have children and that justified in my mind that in her case, she should have access to a gun. If she had kids or if kids had access to her private residence, then I immediately think that she shouldn't have a gun. I don't think there is a right or even, a better answer. Just because we have the right to have guns doesn't mean it's the smartest thing to do, and just because kids accidently get access to guns, that that doesn't mean we should ban them full-stop. I do believe in stronger gun laws and that getting them should be difficult for both John Q. Public and the gang member down the street. I also think that there are enough guns on the planet and we should have rations on how many need to be made each year.
