The Right to Bear Arms

[ginnyfizz]

That, in my opinion, is the way to go. Turn the balance back towards the ordinary citizen and away from the criminal.

[DarkeWolf]

Thats an interesting point, about the dog, or pet. Tho I do agree, it's absolutely rediculous. Should a child, with uncontrollable penchants for violence be left on a leash in their own home when unattended?

Off topic, but yeah...thats absolutely rediculous.

Still off topic, but since we're talking about dogs. Here in the US, many police agencies use dogs with police officers. Called K9 units. Used for tracking, drug sniffing, and other substances detection. If they set one of those dogs on you, and you injure the animal, in your own defense... you can and probably will be, charged with assaulting a police officer.

 

Ethyr and jojo have it absolutely correct.

[hoshi23]

i think the indians werent so mad strucken with killing each other. as i recall it they did not need prisons either.

[Crivil]

Maybe i'm just naive, but I think of it like this:

 

You could only be intimidated by the idea of law abiding(and other-wise moral) citizens owning guns if you were one of 2 things. Either a tyrant looking to oppress those citizens. OR if you were a criminal looking to victimize them.

 

 

If your not either one of those then you've got nothing to fear from decent and moral people owning weapons.

Simple, I know, but that's how I see it.

 

 

You forgot the 95% of non american and non criminal people in occident: The ones who thinks guns (civil ones) aren't needed if you have an advanced society. And btw, fireguns have only one purpouse, kill living things, including persons, so the right of having em implies the possibility of use em for manslaying. Me, an 90% of european people wouldn't ever use lethal violence (guns) for defending their material possessions, i don't wanna be robbed but i would prefer lose some wealth for it than kill another one for a matter of money. And, luckily, 95% of europeans will EVER not being in a situation to need a gun to defend their lifes. For my material stuff there's something called insurances.

 

So, the damages free gun possession means in a society are far worse than the "few" chances you really should have the need for using it.

[Christine777]

@ Balagor, Darkwolf and Ginnyfizz.

I am just amuse seeing how differently our countries consider lethal weapons.

Here in our town many villager are involve in cane production. Since we dont have very good technology yet, so cane harvesting is done manually. With this many people/workers are carrying very large sword-like things (sorry I'm really in trouble describing this sword), we called "Spading" : It is very sharp one edged sword, about 5 inches wide and about one meter long. During harvest season almost all "Sakadas"(Sugar Cane Harvesters) are carrying this everywhere. even in public utility vehicles. The sad thing is when they got drunk and find disputes in their converstaion they are cutting its other's limbs instead of sugar canes lol...

 

@ my friend Balagor (on dogs)

Yes, a dog can be a very good defense. That is why we keep a Doberman, a German Shepherd and 2 Rottweilera, and many other ordinary dogs at home (we have 11 dogs here in our home). I really trusted them especially the very master-faithful Zorro(the Doberman). But, last year's event chages my perspective on them. Because someone really break through our fence and steal 3 of my uncle's high-breeded Cockfighting Roster. They did'nt get through the house though, since if they did, I just can't imagine what will happen to them. I dont know what charm those robber has, but the dogs scattering around our compound has not allerted us and they(the dogs) did nothing to defend us that time.

[Christine777]

Maybe i'm just naive, but I think of it like this:

 

You could only be intimidated by the idea of law abiding(and other-wise moral) citizens owning guns if you were one of 2 things. Either a tyrant looking to oppress those citizens. OR if you were a criminal looking to victimize them.

 

 

If your not either one of those then you've got nothing to fear from decent and moral people owning weapons.

Simple, I know, but that's how I see it.

 

 

You forgot the 95% of non american and non criminal people in occident: The ones who thinks guns (civil ones) aren't needed if you have an advanced society. And btw, fireguns have only one purpouse, kill living things, including persons, so the right of having em implies the possibility of use em for manslaying. Me, an 90% of european people wouldn't ever use lethal violence (guns) for defending their material possessions, i don't wanna be robbed but i would prefer lose some wealth for it than kill another one for a matter of money. And, luckily, 95% of europeans will EVER not being in a situation to need a gun to defend their lifes. For my material stuff there's something called insurances.

 

So, the damages free gun possession means in a society are far worse than the "few" chances you really should have the need for using it.

 

Oh… I really don’t like to disagree with you in this post Crivil, because this view is very humane.

I am a peace loving person. I love people as well as their lives. In fact, almost all good fellows (even the not so good ones) here in our town is a friend of mine. And I hate to kill any living thing that cross this world (except for necessity – such as chickens, etc.. for food). But I can’t just accept your view regarding robbers. Many of them will not just rob you, but will also kill you so that there will be no evidence and complain after the crime. And this idea of yours will just give a “push of encouragement” for them to do the crime again, and again, and again.

If this will be the view of everybody, the criminals will rule this world.

[Aurielius]

 

You forgot the 95% of non american and non criminal people in occident: The ones who thinks guns (civil ones) aren't needed if you have an advanced society. And btw, fireguns have only one purpouse, kill living things, including persons, so the right of having em implies the possibility of use em for manslaying. Me, an 90% of european people wouldn't ever use lethal violence (guns) for defending their material possessions, i don't wanna be robbed but i would prefer lose some wealth for it than kill another one for a matter of money. And, luckily, 95% of europeans will EVER not being in a situation to need a gun to defend their lifes. For my material stuff there's something called insurances.

So, the damages free gun possession means in a society are far worse than the "few" chances you really should have the need for using it.

 

@Crivil

First off I believe that JoJo was referring to his rights as an American not as a European, of which he is in the cultural mainstream of our nation in terms of attitude towards self defence.

 

Second it's not a matter of possessions...it's called self defence...ie defence of your person or loved ones (not your valuables). If you would read either my or Kendo2 exposition of Pennsylvania or Texas State law you would see that distinction being made between life and property defence.

 

Third , if you think that by playing by the rules of a civil society, that the malefactors will do the same thing....then I wish you luck with that pipe dream. Europe is not immune to escalating armed criminal violence, or at least that's not what your media report.

 

There is an old New Hampshire saying "I'd rather be judged by twelve (jurors) than be carried by six (pallbearers)."

[DarkeWolf]

You forgot the 95% of non american and non criminal people in occident: The ones who thinks guns (civil ones) aren't needed if you have an advanced society. And btw, fireguns have only one purpouse, kill living things, including persons, so the right of having em implies the possibility of use em for manslaying. Me, an 90% of european people wouldn't ever use lethal violence (guns) for defending their material possessions, i don't wanna be robbed but i would prefer lose some wealth for it than kill another one for a matter of money. And, luckily, 95% of europeans will EVER not being in a situation to need a gun to defend their lifes. For my material stuff there's something called insurances.

 

So, the damages free gun possession means in a society are far worse than the "few" chances you really should have the need for using it.

 

COMPLETELY incorrect. And this is the kind of thinking that has to be educated. a gun, is not made simply for killing. Worldwide...target shooting is an enormous sport and industry. Whether it be by blackpowder, shotgun, pistol, or rifle. So much so that there are events in the OLYMPICS, which MANY countries contribute to, which involve target shooting.

I myself have many fond memories of going out to the country with family, or friends, just to go out and shoot at cans. Or going to a range, to punch targets. I've taught some of my gf's and their children how to shoot, at targets, and they have almost all of them enjoyed the experience. (I say almost all, I had one that thought the shotgun had too much kick. Ended up with a sore shoulder, and a sore butt, lol).

 

I have also in the past been part of a reinactment troupe. Where we would reinact events of the civil war (american). In which we used black powder pistols and rifles. With a charge, but with a wad of paper instead of a bullet. So guns also play a part in entertainment, and historical reinactments.

 

So far, we've just spoken about criminals. What about violent animals? What if a pit bull has a lock on one of my arms, and is thrashing his head about, inflicting a lot of damage? I cant grab hold of both of the pressure points needed to force it to release it's jaws, because it has one of my arms, and isnt holding still. But I can mangae to reach down, draw, and shoot the animal.

 

In the town that I lived in, there was a car that went over an embankment, into a deep creek. 3/4 of the car was submerged underwater, and the occupants were at risk of drowning. There was too much pressure against the doors from the water, to be able to get them out thru the doors. An officer had to draw his pistol and shoot one of the rear windows out, in order to get them out, and save their lives.

 

Guns are simply a tool. Guns dont kill people. People kill people.

 

Lets also talk civil defense. America is (debatably) one nation that you do NOT want to invade in a landwar. Why? 3 out of 10 homes have a gun in them. Couple that with all the gangs and organized crime, plus the number of people that illegally carry weapons, and you've got one of the most heavily armed civilian militia's in the world.

[Vagrant0]

Closing this thread since it has done little but degrade into one personal attack after another, followed by the same sort of circular arguments and broad generalizations. I had been hoping that the thread would eventually work itself out of the mire, but this has not happened from best I can tell. I had considered issuing strikes to those responsible, but realized that it would be too hard to catch everyone, leading to even more problems. So I'm just closing this now and reminding people to please re-read the site rules and bben's thread http://thenexusforums.com/index.php?showtopic=190703 before posting anything more in this section. You know who you are. You don't want to get a strike, and I don't want to give them, so let's all just play nice... m'kay.

 

As for the discussion, I'll end it on this note. Once owning weapons (both guns, knives, and anything else) becomes illegal, only criminals will be owning weapons. Criminals will always find a way, and anyone who is no longer given the right to defend themselves will only become a victim. The situation within one country does not necessarily have any meaning in another. You cannot have universal civility in a mostly hostile world. As we cannot even have civility on these forums, how can you expect people to act civil toward each other when you take away someone's right to defense.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Vagrant0