Hey, I'm not the one making the decision to break into people's homes, or randomly mug people on the street, or whatever. I'm saying I have a right to defend myself and my property. Like it or not guns are rampant here, restricting them will only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of the criminals, who will only become more brazen.
If one chooses to live a life of crime, one chooses a lifestyle that could have dire consequences. Much the same as if you chose a lifestyle that included unsafe, unprotected sex, you would have chosen a lifestyle that could lead to your premature death as a result of AIDS, some other nasty STD, or even a jealous husband. There are consequences to the lifestyles we choose, and like it of not, we have to live, or die, as a result of those choices. The criminals, whatever their motive, chose a riskier lifestyle than most of the rest of us. If put in the situation of dealing with a criminal, I will do what I can to get out of the situation with minimal loss or damage to myself. If it's a show of force, no harm no foul, fine, if I'm left with no non-lethal solution, heaven forbid, fine too. We choose our own lifestyles, we choose our own risks. If you choose the criminal lifestyle, you know there are people like me in the world and you know you know you are placing the value of your own life below whatever potential gain you may see.
Probably a product of the culture in which I was raised. Had we been neighbors growing up, we would probably see eye-to-eye on the issue. Depending on which location that would have been would determine which of our views we would believe to be correct.
Don't feel bad, you are not alone. So far, no one has convinced me that I should not be able to use force to defend myself, my family, or my home.
Just a show of force is usually enough to deter the rogue pick-pocket/purse-snatcher. Been there, done that, in Times Square, NY actually. Had some cat paying more attention to my camera than he was to me. I tucked the camera under my jacket, he then went from looking at my camera to looking at my face, to looking at the menacing way I was now holding my tripod. He turned and walked the other way. If you are aware of your suroundings, you can generally detect potential threats and avoid/prevent a situation from even starting. If someone is already in the act of something, how can you determine how far they will go. I don't want to die or end up in a hospital because someone is a crack-head.
Actually, the 95% petty criminals are armed because the weapons are widely available and they are paranoid about getting caught. As my first post said, I believe that this is a pandora's box that has been open for so long that even hope has probably escaped.
The retards with guns need to be worried about as well. If I recall correctly, another post mentioned proper training, and even a tongue in cheek mention about kids and guns. I was raised around guns, and when I was too little to understand, they were never anywhere that I could get to them. I knew they were there, and had even seen them. When my grand-dad thought I was old enough to understand, he taught me first about gun safety, then took me out and let me shoot. Being a little kid having one of those things knock you on your butt when you shoot it sends a strong message about what they can do. Looking back on it, I think that's why he had me shoot the 357 first, rather than the.22 he also had with us. So that I would fall on my butt and understand the power that such a small thing could have.
Frozen salmon!?!? By all that is holy, freezing salmon should be a crime in and of itself. One should never freeze such a tasty creature in this day and age, it should be eaten fresh. We have the transportation and refigeration technology to get fresh salmon delivered anywhere in the world without it spoiling. There just is no excuse for freezing salmon.
No legislation will make the weapons simply vanish from existence. The weapons exist, they are already in the hands of the people who would perform such acts, or in the hands of dealers who will sell to those people. When I say dealers here, I'm not just referring to legal weapons dealers, but also the underground black-market guys that will sell anything to anyone that has the cash.
But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
If you feel that standing up and speaking out for one's beliefs and rights makes one an ITG, then I guess that label fits me in your eyes. I find it very sad that you would go through life letting others trample your beliefs and ideals without standing up for yourself. If my choice is to be an ITG, or a pathetic creature such as yourself that lashes out against what it doesn't understand while refusing to stand up for its own ideals, I would rather be the ITG. You have both my sympathy and pity.
I only get to disrespect and diss you. I don't get to shoot you, unless you also commit criminal acts against me.
I do not smell, and my tie... hey, wait, what do you know of my tie, you aren't that person that keeps stalking me are you?
Had they not chosen their actions, they wouldn't be in the situation.
I really don't like that some people feel that the victim of a crime should just lie back and take it, while the criminal gets away with whatever they want.
Did you miss the part about necessary force, and the option of the cops hauling someone away in cuffs. Fucking hint, dead people are not hauled away in cuffs.
I think people who only see only what they want to see in order to make a decision, and refuse to look at the whole picture are the ones that shouldn't breed.
May prevent crimes of passion, unless the offender found something else to use as a weapon. Say the lamp on the nightstand, beside the bed, where your wife is currently screwing another man. Or the car to run the SOB down as he's running away, or next time you see him.
Yeah, the law-abiding citizen that turns his gun in when it is outlawed is suddenly going to decide to start knocking off liquor stores for no reason.
What's to stop some nut job, with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people?
There's a huge paradox here. Talking about school killings, as far as I know, most of them have happened in countries where it is legal and easy to own a gun (USA, Finland, Canada). It doesn't seem to act much as a deterrent, at least not as much as not to be able to get a weapon at all. Besides, following your logic, the right to bear arms should have protected people better, but it didn't because you're not allowed to carry arms at school and, possibly, in some other public places too. So what's your solution here? Everyone should be encouraged to carry arms at all times to protect himself or herself better like in the Old West? Do you think, if that was the case, if everyone was carrying guns, that you would all be protected better and that the number of crimes would magically drop? Or wouldn't the number shoot skyward?
It actually could take no one carrying a weapon, just the knowledge that someone else could be carrying one could be deterrent enough
Your main argument being all along the fear of being killed, that assumption seems correct. It is a rightful fear of course because in the US you have a long history of civil violence, but the problem is that you fail to see the connection between that violence and the right to bear arms. You can only think of that "man, somewhere out there, who might kill" as a reason to have a gun, not as the flaw in your peace of mind drawing its strength from the second amendment.
Yes, we do have a long history of civil violence. If all the guns in this country were to vanish overnight, that would not change. I lived in one city where the weapon of choice for the criminals was a knife, and the crime rate was quite high. Knives are just as deadly as guns in the wrong hands, just takes more skill and daring to properly wield a knife. Having worked as a butcher, I quite like knives. I don't carry mine everywhere anymore, as the city I live in has ordinances against lock-blade knives. That surely couldn't have come about because of knives weren't being used as weapons.
Not everyone would turn in their weapons, and even if they did, that wouldn't put an end to crimes, innocent people would continue to get murdered; well, all that is obvious.
Then why take a weapon that requires little skill to use away from someone that will be using it to defend themselves.
As for the original topic... that's a preposterous and dangerous idea. Between old people who would accidentally shoot someone, shoot the wrong person, or even shoot themselves (be it a suicide or an accident), taking also into account potential criminals who could take advantage of the weapon's harmless look, there's a lot of possibilities that it goes totally wrong.
Perhaps the prescription part could be preposterous, depends on the guidelines for who is allowed a prescription. As for the other points:
accidentally shoot someone: Proper firearms safety and training will prevent most of that, and should be required for gun owners.
shoot the wrong person, or even shoot themselves(accident): Proper firearms safety and training will prevent most of that, and should be required for gun owners.
shoot themselves(suicide): A suicidal person will find other ways to do it.
potential criminals who could take advantage of the weapon's harmless look: with the exception of a hitman, highly unlikely, criminals use weapons largely to coerce and intimidate, they don't want the weapon to look harmless, it would defeat the whole purpose. A hitman would love a harmless looking weapon, but lets
I give respect to all that have not shown any disrespect for me, regardless of their standing or position. When someone shows me disrespect, then they no longer have my respect or consideration.
As for free speech, I grant that to all, and if they do not respect my freedom of speech, they hear it the loudest.
Hmmm, as I recall, all the school shootings have occurred on campuses where carrying a firearm is illegal. Could it be that law abiding gun owners don't want to break the law by carrying a weapon where it is illegal to do so?
There was a mall shotting that was stopped by an off duty cop who was carrying his weapon in store where it was posted that people were not allowed to carry firearms. Did that guy stop shooting people because he realized he wasn't supposed to be carrying his weapon there, or did he stop shooting because someone else shot him? Tough call on that one.
I think someone needs to check a few more facts before posting.
Could that possibly be because guns aren't rampant on UK streets?
You are trying to compare apples and oranges here. In the US, a large portion of our violent criminals CURRENTLY possess firearms, and there are plenty more weapons on the illegal market waiting to be sold. Strict regulation is not going to remove those firearms from the streets, it will only remove the firearms from law abiding citizens. I wouldn't have a problem with not to be allowed to have a gun if it were only the very rare criminal that had a gun, and crime rates were low, but neither is the case on this side of the pond.
In WWII, US soldiers entering the UK could not carry their weapons when disembarking from their ships. They had to have their weapons handed to them after they were on UK soil because of the gun regulations at the time.
The second amendment is there to protect that right. Remember, the first 10 amendments were added immediately after the constitution was signed, it wasn't years later and the old fogeys of the day deciding, hey, wait, we need to protect the things we stood up for because the young whipper snappers are trying to take that stuff away.
If you were part of an invading army, would you expect that old guy acting like he was confused and disoriented to be coming up to you for the purpose of shooting you and taking your weapon?
If I use a gun to kill a poisonous snake about to bite me when I'm changing a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, how does respect come into play?
If a farmer or rancher uses a gun to kill a coyote ravaging his livestock, how does respect come into play?
If a hiker/camper fires a gun to scare away a bear that is charging him, how does respect come into play?
If I hold at gunpoint, or shoot, a criminal, committing a criminal act against me, why should I have or show any respect for the person who has already shown a complete disrespect for me?
How do I insure myself against being dead when someone breaks in would rather not have me whining to the cops with their description etc... in your world? In mine, it is with self defense using whatever force necessary to neutralize the situation until law enforcement arrives. If the necessary force is a gun pointed at the guy till the cops arrive to cuff him and haul him away, fine. If the necessary force is a bullet in his brain, fine. I am not the one who decided to commit a criminal act.
Gun, knife, baseball bat... either lethal or deterring force can be applied with any of those items, as well as many other common items about the home.
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
Wow, when was the US a country that didn't have an overwhelming number of guns in the hands of the citizens? Oh, wait, it was never. Our citizens had guns when we first became a country. We strongly believed in gun ownership then because we just won an armed rebellion against a colonial power.
Please, enlighten me, how does evidence from a country with historically strict gun control relate to a country where guns are rampant? How does evidence that apples are red relate to oranges being, well, orange?
Guns are too easy to get over here, for anyone. They are even a large part of the problem with our southern border, drugs running north, guns running south, smugglers/gangs shooting each other and corrupting or shooting the cops. Hey, I live about an hour and a half drive from where that is all taking place. I also know some gun owners that really shouldn't own any type of weapon. One of those guys has several aggravated assault charges, and convictions, as well as an AK47. He's had the convictions longer than he's had the AK. I don't think he's shot anyone with it, but he did shoot up his girlfriends truck one day. Part of his family, (uncle and cousins), are also part of the southern border problem. I would much prefer that we keep our "mini cold war" than have the only people with guns being the cops and the crooks, with the crooks more heavily armed, we've seen that scenario with a bank robbery.
In a utopian world where guns were tightly controlled and weren't in the hands of violent criminals, I would be on the other side of the fence on this issue. I don't live in that utopian world. I don't pretend that utopian world will become a reality with some crafty legislation either.
Simple facts:
We have an large, unknown number of guns in the civilian population.
A significant portion of those guns are in the hands of criminals who have no qualms about using them.
Most of rest of us don't want to deal with the legal problems if we have to use lethal force, but in a me or them situation, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Most people don't own guns, but you can never tell by looking. I would never suspect my mom's 90 year old aunt of owning a gun if I met her on the street. Fact is, her.38 revolver is always close at hand, and she wouldn't have any second thoughts about using it if she felt she had to.
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.
Go ahead, mod me a troll for this one but I feel I just have to. What's to stop some nut job, (who has no regard for life, his or others), with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people? It's definitely not some law abiding citizen carrying a gun because it is illegal to carry a weapon on most campuses. Do you think such a thing could happen? You are an idiot if you answered "no" because recent history has already proven that answer to be false.
-- The sig should not be applied to any of the preceding paragraphs
I am of the belief that no material possession is worth a life. I really don't understand why some people believe that their life is worth less than anything they would be able to steal from a place they break into, but I will do what I can to honor their belief if they test it here.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow - Finally someone using common sense in their reply.
Hey, I'm not the one making the decision to break into people's homes, or randomly mug people on the street, or whatever. I'm saying I have a right to defend myself and my property. Like it or not guns are rampant here, restricting them will only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of the criminals, who will only become more brazen.
If one chooses to live a life of crime, one chooses a lifestyle that could have dire consequences. Much the same as if you chose a lifestyle that included unsafe, unprotected sex, you would have chosen a lifestyle that could lead to your premature death as a result of AIDS, some other nasty STD, or even a jealous husband. There are consequences to the lifestyles we choose, and like it of not, we have to live, or die, as a result of those choices. The criminals, whatever their motive, chose a riskier lifestyle than most of the rest of us. If put in the situation of dealing with a criminal, I will do what I can to get out of the situation with minimal loss or damage to myself. If it's a show of force, no harm no foul, fine, if I'm left with no non-lethal solution, heaven forbid, fine too. We choose our own lifestyles, we choose our own risks. If you choose the criminal lifestyle, you know there are people like me in the world and you know you know you are placing the value of your own life below whatever potential gain you may see.
Probably a product of the culture in which I was raised. Had we been neighbors growing up, we would probably see eye-to-eye on the issue. Depending on which location that would have been would determine which of our views we would believe to be correct.
Don't feel bad, you are not alone. So far, no one has convinced me that I should not be able to use force to defend myself, my family, or my home.
Just a show of force is usually enough to deter the rogue pick-pocket/purse-snatcher. Been there, done that, in Times Square, NY actually. Had some cat paying more attention to my camera than he was to me. I tucked the camera under my jacket, he then went from looking at my camera to looking at my face, to looking at the menacing way I was now holding my tripod. He turned and walked the other way. If you are aware of your suroundings, you can generally detect potential threats and avoid/prevent a situation from even starting. If someone is already in the act of something, how can you determine how far they will go. I don't want to die or end up in a hospital because someone is a crack-head.
Actually, the 95% petty criminals are armed because the weapons are widely available and they are paranoid about getting caught. As my first post said, I believe that this is a pandora's box that has been open for so long that even hope has probably escaped.
The retards with guns need to be worried about as well. If I recall correctly, another post mentioned proper training, and even a tongue in cheek mention about kids and guns. I was raised around guns, and when I was too little to understand, they were never anywhere that I could get to them. I knew they were there, and had even seen them. When my grand-dad thought I was old enough to understand, he taught me first about gun safety, then took me out and let me shoot. Being a little kid having one of those things knock you on your butt when you shoot it sends a strong message about what they can do. Looking back on it, I think that's why he had me shoot the 357 first, rather than the .22 he also had with us. So that I would fall on my butt and understand the power that such a small thing could have.
And I would not want to live in a place where I could not defend myself and my property. Guess we will likely never meet.
Frozen salmon!?!? By all that is holy, freezing salmon should be a crime in and of itself. One should never freeze such a tasty creature in this day and age, it should be eaten fresh. We have the transportation and refigeration technology to get fresh salmon delivered anywhere in the world without it spoiling. There just is no excuse for freezing salmon.
No legislation will make the weapons simply vanish from existence. The weapons exist, they are already in the hands of the people who would perform such acts, or in the hands of dealers who will sell to those people. When I say dealers here, I'm not just referring to legal weapons dealers, but also the underground black-market guys that will sell anything to anyone that has the cash.
But... lots of people show disrespect for Internet Tough Guys. As an ITG, this must happen to you often.
Does that mean you get to shoot me?
Right. So the 'respect' thing is really of questionable relevance. Also, you smell and your tie looks stupid.
If you feel that standing up and speaking out for one's beliefs and rights makes one an ITG, then I guess that label fits me in your eyes. I find it very sad that you would go through life letting others trample your beliefs and ideals without standing up for yourself. If my choice is to be an ITG, or a pathetic creature such as yourself that lashes out against what it doesn't understand while refusing to stand up for its own ideals, I would rather be the ITG. You have both my sympathy and pity.
I only get to disrespect and diss you. I don't get to shoot you, unless you also commit criminal acts against me.
I do not smell, and my tie... hey, wait, what do you know of my tie, you aren't that person that keeps stalking me are you?
Neither are they.
Had they not chosen their actions, they wouldn't be in the situation.
I really don't like that some people feel that the victim of a crime should just lie back and take it, while the criminal gets away with whatever they want.
Did you miss the part about necessary force, and the option of the cops hauling someone away in cuffs. Fucking hint, dead people are not hauled away in cuffs.
I think people who only see only what they want to see in order to make a decision, and refuse to look at the whole picture are the ones that shouldn't breed.
May prevent crimes of passion, unless the offender found something else to use as a weapon. Say the lamp on the nightstand, beside the bed, where your wife is currently screwing another man. Or the car to run the SOB down as he's running away, or next time you see him.
Yeah, the law-abiding citizen that turns his gun in when it is outlawed is suddenly going to decide to start knocking off liquor stores for no reason.
There's a huge paradox here. Talking about school killings, as far as I know, most of them have happened in countries where it is legal and easy to own a gun (USA, Finland, Canada). It doesn't seem to act much as a deterrent, at least not as much as not to be able to get a weapon at all. Besides, following your logic, the right to bear arms should have protected people better, but it didn't because you're not allowed to carry arms at school and, possibly, in some other public places too. So what's your solution here? Everyone should be encouraged to carry arms at all times to protect himself or herself better like in the Old West? Do you think, if that was the case, if everyone was carrying guns, that you would all be protected better and that the number of crimes would magically drop? Or wouldn't the number shoot skyward?
It actually could take no one carrying a weapon, just the knowledge that someone else could be carrying one could be deterrent enough
Your main argument being all along the fear of being killed, that assumption seems correct. It is a rightful fear of course because in the US you have a long history of civil violence, but the problem is that you fail to see the connection between that violence and the right to bear arms. You can only think of that "man, somewhere out there, who might kill" as a reason to have a gun, not as the flaw in your peace of mind drawing its strength from the second amendment.
Yes, we do have a long history of civil violence. If all the guns in this country were to vanish overnight, that would not change. I lived in one city where the weapon of choice for the criminals was a knife, and the crime rate was quite high. Knives are just as deadly as guns in the wrong hands, just takes more skill and daring to properly wield a knife. Having worked as a butcher, I quite like knives. I don't carry mine everywhere anymore, as the city I live in has ordinances against lock-blade knives. That surely couldn't have come about because of knives weren't being used as weapons.
Not everyone would turn in their weapons, and even if they did, that wouldn't put an end to crimes, innocent people would continue to get murdered; well, all that is obvious.
Then why take a weapon that requires little skill to use away from someone that will be using it to defend themselves.
As for the original topic... that's a preposterous and dangerous idea. Between old people who would accidentally shoot someone, shoot the wrong person, or even shoot themselves (be it a suicide or an accident), taking also into account potential criminals who could take advantage of the weapon's harmless look, there's a lot of possibilities that it goes totally wrong.
Perhaps the prescription part could be preposterous, depends on the guidelines for who is allowed a prescription. As for the other points:
accidentally shoot someone: Proper firearms safety and training will prevent most of that, and should be required for gun owners.
shoot the wrong person, or even shoot themselves(accident): Proper firearms safety and training will prevent most of that, and should be required for gun owners.
shoot themselves(suicide): A suicidal person will find other ways to do it.
potential criminals who could take advantage of the weapon's harmless look: with the exception of a hitman, highly unlikely, criminals use weapons largely to coerce and intimidate, they don't want the weapon to look harmless, it would defeat the whole purpose. A hitman would love a harmless looking weapon, but lets
Quite correct, it is not an ethics issue, or a human right. It is a constitutional right granted to all citizens of the US.
I give respect to all that have not shown any disrespect for me, regardless of their standing or position. When someone shows me disrespect, then they no longer have my respect or consideration.
As for free speech, I grant that to all, and if they do not respect my freedom of speech, they hear it the loudest.
Hmmm, as I recall, all the school shootings have occurred on campuses where carrying a firearm is illegal. Could it be that law abiding gun owners don't want to break the law by carrying a weapon where it is illegal to do so?
There was a mall shotting that was stopped by an off duty cop who was carrying his weapon in store where it was posted that people were not allowed to carry firearms. Did that guy stop shooting people because he realized he wasn't supposed to be carrying his weapon there, or did he stop shooting because someone else shot him? Tough call on that one.
I think someone needs to check a few more facts before posting.
Could that possibly be because guns aren't rampant on UK streets?
You are trying to compare apples and oranges here. In the US, a large portion of our violent criminals CURRENTLY possess firearms, and there are plenty more weapons on the illegal market waiting to be sold. Strict regulation is not going to remove those firearms from the streets, it will only remove the firearms from law abiding citizens. I wouldn't have a problem with not to be allowed to have a gun if it were only the very rare criminal that had a gun, and crime rates were low, but neither is the case on this side of the pond.
In WWII, US soldiers entering the UK could not carry their weapons when disembarking from their ships. They had to have their weapons handed to them after they were on UK soil because of the gun regulations at the time.
The second amendment is there to protect that right. Remember, the first 10 amendments were added immediately after the constitution was signed, it wasn't years later and the old fogeys of the day deciding, hey, wait, we need to protect the things we stood up for because the young whipper snappers are trying to take that stuff away.
If you were part of an invading army, would you expect that old guy acting like he was confused and disoriented to be coming up to you for the purpose of shooting you and taking your weapon?
Only one boom, it only holds one cartridge, and the Alzheimer patient probably wouldn't remember how to reload. :)
WTF over?
I'm beginning to feel a bit like this obligitory XKCD post.
If I use a gun to kill a poisonous snake about to bite me when I'm changing a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, how does respect come into play?
If a farmer or rancher uses a gun to kill a coyote ravaging his livestock, how does respect come into play?
If a hiker/camper fires a gun to scare away a bear that is charging him, how does respect come into play?
If I hold at gunpoint, or shoot, a criminal, committing a criminal act against me, why should I have or show any respect for the person who has already shown a complete disrespect for me?
How do I insure myself against being dead when someone breaks in would rather not have me whining to the cops with their description etc... in your world? In mine, it is with self defense using whatever force necessary to neutralize the situation until law enforcement arrives. If the necessary force is a gun pointed at the guy till the cops arrive to cuff him and haul him away, fine. If the necessary force is a bullet in his brain, fine. I am not the one who decided to commit a criminal act. Gun, knife, baseball bat... either lethal or deterring force can be applied with any of those items, as well as many other common items about the home.
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
Wow, when was the US a country that didn't have an overwhelming number of guns in the hands of the citizens? Oh, wait, it was never. Our citizens had guns when we first became a country. We strongly believed in gun ownership then because we just won an armed rebellion against a colonial power.
Please, enlighten me, how does evidence from a country with historically strict gun control relate to a country where guns are rampant? How does evidence that apples are red relate to oranges being, well, orange?
Guns are too easy to get over here, for anyone. They are even a large part of the problem with our southern border, drugs running north, guns running south, smugglers/gangs shooting each other and corrupting or shooting the cops. Hey, I live about an hour and a half drive from where that is all taking place. I also know some gun owners that really shouldn't own any type of weapon. One of those guys has several aggravated assault charges, and convictions, as well as an AK47. He's had the convictions longer than he's had the AK. I don't think he's shot anyone with it, but he did shoot up his girlfriends truck one day. Part of his family, (uncle and cousins), are also part of the southern border problem. I would much prefer that we keep our "mini cold war" than have the only people with guns being the cops and the crooks, with the crooks more heavily armed, we've seen that scenario with a bank robbery.
In a utopian world where guns were tightly controlled and weren't in the hands of violent criminals, I would be on the other side of the fence on this issue. I don't live in that utopian world. I don't pretend that utopian world will become a reality with some crafty legislation either.
Simple facts:
We have an large, unknown number of guns in the civilian population.
A significant portion of those guns are in the hands of criminals who have no qualms about using them.
Most of rest of us don't want to deal with the legal problems if we have to use lethal force, but in a me or them situation, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Most people don't own guns, but you can never tell by looking. I would never suspect my mom's 90 year old aunt of owning a gun if I met her on the street. Fact is, her .38 revolver is always close at hand, and she wouldn't have any second thoughts about using it if she felt she had to.
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.
Go ahead, mod me a troll for this one but I feel I just have to. What's to stop some nut job, (who has no regard for life, his or others), with a gun from wandering onto a school campus and shooting a bunch of people? It's definitely not some law abiding citizen carrying a gun because it is illegal to carry a weapon on most campuses. Do you think such a thing could happen? You are an idiot if you answered "no" because recent history has already proven that answer to be false.
-- The sig should not be applied to any of the preceding paragraphs
I am of the belief that no material possession is worth a life. I really don't understand why some people believe that their life is worth less than anything they would be able to steal from a place they break into, but I will do what I can to honor their belief if they test it here.
Have you posted a copy of that script somewhere? I would be interested in checking it out.