Do You Need A Gun? [Poll]

When the world degenerates to that point

Depending on where you live, it may already be at that point. I carry a concealed firearm at the office, and would encourage everyone can safely and lawfully do so to do the same.

I hope your boss is aware and it isn't somewhere where an unstable coworker can get to it, or say, their kids if they come into the office.

Otherwise, you're looking at lawsuits.

I find it very sad to even look at this poll and see that 71% of the people feel they need a gun.

What kind of world do we live in ? Is it really that crazy ? I sure hope not....

If someone wants a gun for sports, thats OK. But feeling like you need a gun, No that is not OK, for me.

Excuse me? see my comment below. I have yet to see a reasonable rebuttal for it.

I have yet to see a reasonable rebuttal for it

Then I will provide one. Who gave you the right to be judge, jury and executioner ?
Do you have the experience ?
Do you have all the data and know exactly what was going on ?
Was the person mentally stable ?
Where you at the time of shooting ?
Are you 100% right you just killed the correct person ?
Can you prove beyond a responsible doubt that you are telling the full truth and nothing but the truth ?

Answer every one of those questions. Then I would consider a reply. Otherwise your comment in 2.4 has no validity.

Esteemed Mr. Riggs:

What you FEEL about having guns for personal protection is irrelevant.

I once knew a man, bless his soul, who suffered from Parkinson's Disease. This man was wealthy and had a beautiful wife. He owned a gun for personal protection and had to use it because some foolish young man decided he could physically harm my friend in an obscure macho attempt to steal the mans wife. What would you have had this man do? Leave his gun at home and possibly be injured or killed by this insanity. By the way, this man did use deadly force and a jury of his peers decided he was not guilty of a crime, but only defending his life.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not big on guns myself, but unless you walk in the shoes of someone who has really needed a gun for personal protection then it really isn't your decision to make, only your opinion. And you know what most people will say what we can do with our opinions.

Riggs:

So let me get this straight.

A man (or men, or women, or whatever) breaks into my house, armed. He/she/they threaten me or my family. Our lives are clearly in danger--and i have no right to defend myself from them unless I have a degree in psychology, SEAL training, combat experience, and am a liscensed state executioner?

What you FEEL about having guns for personal protection is irrelevant

Oh OK, I get it, so what I say or think, does not matter. Yet anyone with a brain, knows that everything I just stated are all legal requirements.

What if you happened to take a medication for that Parkinson's Disease and reacted the wrong way, because the medication was incorrectly labeled ? If you had a sulfa allergy, that could drive you to a psychotic break, what if, you shot your wife by mistake ?

That is my only point.......Accidents happen....People are not perfect....I have been to far to many accident scene's and they are not pleasant.

Clearly if you need to defend yourself or your family, that is another story. I have a 25 yr old daughter. If she still lived at home, I would not stop to take whatever action it took to protect her.

My only point was caution. Kids find guns. People forgot to lock them correctly. Even people that have been around guns do.

Sorry that you feel my opinion does not count. You have no more vote then I do.

And please, cut out the "Esteemed Mr. Riggs" Crap.

Mr Riggs

Then I will provide one. Who gave you the right to be judge, jury and executioner ?
Do you have the experience ?
Do you have all the data and know exactly what was going on ?
Was the person mentally stable ?
Where you at the time of shooting ?
Are you 100% right you just killed the correct person ?
Can you prove beyond a responsible doubt that you are telling the full truth and nothing but the truth ?

What you say is absolutetly true. All these pre-conditions must and should be met. Quite or more often than not they cannot therefore owning a gun becomes not only unneccesary but a Liability !

Tedd Riggs says, in part:

'I have a 25 yr old daughter'

Damn, you're getting old and stuff.

Just kidding. My daughter is 30.

On the serious side, now: In Washington State, your home is NOT where you really need a gun, anyway. If you look at stats, the famous 'night-burglar' scenario is actually quite rare. The vast majority of burglaries happen during the day, when you are not home. Most burglars are dumb, but they're not stupid. Don't you think they KNOW someone might come downstairs and blow them to hell? Or in my case, beat them half to death with my trusty bat? Of course they do.

The only place I have found where I WILL carry a loaded weapon (I also have a permit) is when I go camping way out in the middle of nowhere. Trust me, this is where the weirdos hang out. Think it's bad in your neighborhood? Ha... Out in the woods is where you can easily run into people dragging out their equipment to cook up meth, or kids with guns who cruise into the hills in their latest stolen car or to do some target shooting and drinking.

Wonderful.

Nowadays, when I set up camp in a remote location, I always go where I can see people coming long before they even know I'm there. And I keep an eye on them, just in case. It's too bad, because the wilderness used to be the place where you get away from these types, and these days it can be the other way around.

Who gave you the right to be judge, jury and executioner? In a situation in which I feel my life to be in danger? It's my inherent right by virtue of being a free citizen. Or, for those of you who are religious in nature, a right granted by God.

Do you have the experience? That's pretty much irrelevant. Experience or lack thereof ultimately doesn't touch on the question as to whether one does or does not have the right to self-defense.

Do you have all the data and know exactly what was going on ? Perfect knowledge isn't a legal requirement. Reasonable belief is. If someone threatens me with a weapon, and I have a reasonable belief that I may be bodily harmed, I have the right to respond appropriately. This includes responding with lethal force, if I feel my life is threatened.

Was the person mentally stable ? Irrelevant. What's relevant is whether they are threatening my life. A career criminal threatening me with a gun and a crazy person threatening me with a gun will meet the same level of resistance, irrespective of their mental state. And if I shoot either one, the state will treat the situation the same-- did I have a reasonable belief that my life was in danger? That's not impugned by the assailant's mental state.

Where you at the time of shooting ? If you're not mentally stable, you shouldn't have a gun. I think we can all agree on that. The question is whether or not people should be presumed stable or crazy in the absence of evidence to one degree or the other. I say most people are sane. You may disagree. In either case, however, the legality of a self-defense shooting will still hinge on whether I perceived there to be a threat to my life.

Are you 100% right you just killed the correct person ? That's a question of law, but usually when someone attacks you, you're not going to be shooting the guy standing over in the corner minding his own business.

Can you prove beyond a responsible doubt that you are telling the full truth and nothing but the truth ? Prosecutors decide whether your reaction to an assault is reasonable for the purposes of filing charges. If they think you're telling the truth, you don't have anything to worry about. If they don't, then and only then do you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you felt your life was in danger.

All these pre-conditions must and should be met. Three of those preconditions are irrelevant. One may or may not be, depending on the circumstances. One isn't a "precondition" so much as an inherent right. The only two that "must be met" are "Were you mentally stable at the time of the shooting?" and "Did you shoot only the person who was attacking you?"-- the other "preconditions" are conditional and often inconsequential.

uite or more often than not they cannot therefore owning a gun becomes not only unneccesary but a Liability ! Sure. If you're unsure whether or not you can meet these preconditions satisfactorily, obviously you must allow yourself to be assaulted or killed. It's the only moral thing to do. [/sarcasm]

The Five Rules of Concealed Carry.

iarnuocon--thanks for the link. When I took a week-long course in lethal force, the instructor (an internationally known handgun instructor) made sure we all were aware of AOJ. A being the ability of someone to do great bodily damage (whether a gun, a knife, a bat, or more than one opponent). O being opportunity to do great bodily harm (that is, a guy with a bat has to be within swinging distance; but a guy with a knife within 21 feet has enough time to get to their prey and kill them before most people could get a gun into action; while two thugs standing at each side could do great bodily harm very quickly). And J means that you must believe that you are in jeopardy (example is thug with knife within 21 feet).

Over the years, I have come to see the wisdom of these three criteria. But I also learned the various colors of awareness: red-being in great jeopardy, yellow-cautiously aware of all activity close to me or further away if weapons are present, and white-totally oblivious to surroundings. It is this 'white' mode of awareness that predators are looking for. Someone on a cellphone paying no attention as he/she walks through the tougher parts of town. This person is easy prey. Alertness is a great quality to hold dear as you travel through life.

@iarnuocon

You are one of the few people that I would have no questions nor any concerns about having a firearm as you clearly know exactly what you are talking about. From reading your numerous reports and articles on various models of guns, its clear, that you do far more then the average person does about firearms and safety regulations.

So the rest of gun owners were as skilled and had the knowledge that you do, I would not have a problem with this. However, lets just say, your "one of a kind" and that is in a good way....

Sure, until he snaps. Anyone can snap, no matter how much you like their arguments.

Thanks, Tedd. I appreciate that, even if I don't think that I'm particularly different from most people who shoot firearms as a hobby.

Henry, the problem with legislating for the lowest common denominator is that we can't turn the world into a padded room. If I snap, what makes me any safer with a car than a gun? I can kill a helluva a lot more people with the former than the latter. What makes me safer with a steak knife? What makes me safer with household chemicals? People who snap are a relatively small danger in the overall scheme of things, no matter how much air-time they get on CNN. It's career criminals who are the problem.

We could always go the way of Great Britain and outlaw everything dangerous, including pointy knives. It's caused a radical upsurge in violent assaults, but at least people feel safer. Right?

If I snap, what makes me any safer with a car than a gun? I can kill a helluva a lot more people with the former than the latter.

If you're that poor a shot, I don't know if you should have a gun at all...

What makes me safer with a steak knife? What makes me safer with household chemicals?

Do you carry them on you like you do a gun? No, you don't. You would have to go home and think about what you're planning to do - rather than simply pulling it out and shooting someone. Further, you can't kill masses of people with a steak knife or bleach. Even a car will stop working when you hit another car.

If you're that poor a shot, I don't know if you should have a gun at all... If you're that ignorant of physics, I don't know whether you should be allowed to voice an opinion on it.

Further, you can't kill masses of people with a steak knife You don't have to reload a steak knife.

or bleach Yes, clearly chemicals are not dangerous in the hands of someone who has snapped.

Even a car will stop working when you hit another car. What about when you hit a crowd of people while doing 80 miles per hour? How many pedestrians do you think I could pick off one by one, if I played my cards right, before the car stopped working?

"@!$%#, are you retarded?"

It's caused a radical upsurge in violent assaults, but at least people feel safer. Right?

We can't really say it "caused" anything, can we? We can find a correlation, surely, but that can be explained in all sorts of ways including: better reporting, better enforcement (all those cameras?), social pressures (no doubt some would like to blame immigration), etc.

I'm confused about something, though. When the UK keeps being brought up as an example of the failure of gun control, I'm getting the impression that private ownership of guns was banned recently. I thought the UK hasn't allowed private ownership of guns (except for hunting) for quite a while. Is that not the case?

Britain instituted a complete ban on handguns in 1997. Prior to that, gun ownership was controlled, but until 1997 did not reach the sort of eradication of guns which Henry has suggested created Japan's idyllic freedom from violence. Prior to that, handguns fell under a licensing scheme, but not a ban.

Sure, it could be correlation and not causation, but it certainly is interesting that their crime rate has gone up each year since 1997, isn't it? The multi-year rise in violence certainly argues against it being merely an artifact of changes in reporting or better enforcement.

More here.

At the same time, violent crime has dropped dramatically in America since the 60s.

How do our firearm control laws compare now to the 80s and early 90s, when violent crime peaked?

I'd say they've become, in some ways, more liberal-- 40 states now have concealed carry laws, the so-called "assault weapons ban" has expired, people are beginning to pressure the government to re-recognize the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right... that may be a bit simplistic, but there's nothing particularly convincing about gun control given that the response to gun control legislation, both in America and elsewhere has been an increase in violence.

What's interesting to me is that while major legislation favoring gun control was passed in '68 (Gun Control Act), '72 (creation of the BATF), '86 (Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act), '90 (Crime Control Act), and '94 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), violent crime was rising the entire time-- especially during and after the creation of "gun free zones" in 1990.

Of all of that, I think the only thing which has had any impact in reducing gun violence has bee the instant background check. The rest of seems to have encouraged violence (which, for many categories, still hasn't dropped back to the levels of the 60s and earlier, when there was less gun control).

Life and death. Good and evil. The right of the individual to decide. Some things are worth dying for. That is my choice.

comment 3 is an example of what I am a few others are talking about. The culture of fear in the US is very clear in that comment.

You have yet to convince me I'm not in danger. I'm not afraid, I'm prepared. see comments below regarding what safeguards you should give up if you want to live without fear by the argument you're making.

Excuse me, but preparing for an event that is unlikely to occur is fear. Fear does not need to manifest itself in cowering in a corner and jumping at the drop of a hat. Fear most often manifests itself as hate, distrust, ridgedness of ones behaviors and opinions, or dislike for change.

preparing for an event that is unlikely to occur is fear

Something about that bothers me greatly. Do you have a spare tire and a jack in your car? Do people with spare tires live in fear? It seems that they are merely prepared. I keep a toolbox in my car does that make me hate my car?

hemphill another apples and oranges argument

In other words, another argument that you're incapable of refuting.

perhaps I should have said it more like this:

An event that is so unlikely to occur to any given individual that having the item poses more problems than are solved, especially if the owner is irresponsible with it.

The item doesn't pose a problem unless the owner is irresponsible with it.

I would posit that if the gun owner is irresponsible with their weapons to the detriment of themselves or their children, that removal of the guns from the household won't solve the problem.

But don't you see? Irresponsible gun ownership is at the very least a large minorety.

Preparing for an event that is unlikely to happen is fear?

*buzzer* I'm sorry. Go do some research on the frequency of innocents harmed by legal handguns vs. people defended by legal handguns (whether they were used or just brought to bear), people harmed by illegal handguns (which you won't be able to regulate EVER), and crimes committed by criminals armed with handguns, and then armed with other things, then re-examine your position. All you people who are clearly afraid to live in a world where sometimes a person has to defend himself should not be lecturing me on fear.

You need to understand that there are three PRIMA FACIA principles at work in the big picture here. You can't argue against them, there is no arguing against them unless you are insane. Number one is we all want to live in a peaceful and safe society. Number two, society is not always safe or peaceful, because sometimes someone gets it into their head to harm other people. Three, when number 2 happens, the victim has a right and a responsibility to defend himself. At that point, only someone completely disconnected from reality would suggest that he should be a good boy and let himself be harmed so that his neighbors can sleep at night. Come to that, only an utter moron would think his neighbors could sleep at night after that happened. So we've established the principle. Now we get into details. Are there other ways to defend yourself? sure. sticks, for example. martial arts training. the police. I've pretty well debunked a and b, so let's look at C: Firstly, the supreme court upheld that their duty is to investigate and arrest, not protect and serve. Look it up, read it and weep. Second, even the good ones have an average response time of about 8 minutes. Good luck with your stick and your martial arts training.
This "Culture of fear" cannard is just idiotic. Show me there aren't violent home invasions, that the stories are made up, and I'll disarm. The business about frequency the odds of occurrence is equally a cannard: THEY DO HAPPEN. Ask a flood insurance agent about the hundred year flood: it's not a question of IF there will be a hundred-year flood, it's a question of WHEN, and they will also tell you that they are not spaced a hundred years apart, they can happen twice the same month! Odds do not impress me. I seemed real paranoid to my friends in New Orleans because I told them to lock their door at night. All it took for me to go from paranoid to wise was one break in.

Better add more steel plating to the roof of your car. Sometimes meteors fall from the sky.

It's all a matter of relative risk. Meteors sometimes fall from the sky, and they occasionally strike cars, houses or animals, but it's an extremely low risk. Care to provide some actual comparison of the likelihood of being struck by a meteorite and being struck by a criminal?

Or, it could just be that most people haven't pissed off the aliens.

That is disingenuous on so many levels. You're not even trying.

I'd call them both extremely low risk.

Currently (going by the figures you've provided elsewhere) the rate of "violent crime" is 473.5 per 100,000. The rate of murder in the US is 5.3 per 100,000. Forcible rape is 30.9 per 100K, robbery 149.4 per 100K and aggravated assault 287.5 per 100K.

What's the rate of meteors striking people per 100K? Less than 0.000000001 per 100k. Mrs. Anne Hodges remains the only human being in history known to have been hit by a meteorite.

Which of these is "extremely low risk"?

I'd still call .4% extremely low risk. There's a higher percentage of people in jail right now (around 1% of the population)- there's a better chance I'll be sent to prison than involved in any sort of violent crime.

We both know that's not how either of these statistics work.

Look, according to the National Safety Council, your lifetime odds of being assaulted are 1 in 217. That's rare, but not particularly rare. About the same odds as dying in a car accident, the risks for which we have developed numerous safety devices and spend much money and effort seeking to ameliorate.

Your lifetime odds of being struck by a meteorite are effectively 0. One person in history has ever had that happen.

To categorize the risks as being remotely the same is misleading and disingenuous. And, yes, we both know that's not how either of these statistics work.

I categorize both risks as "pretty damn rare", though I imagine that the assault odds go WAAAAY up or WAAAAY down depending on where one lives.

Interestingly, your lifetime chance to die via intentional self-harm via firearm (1 in 225) is higher than your lifetime chance to die via assault with a firearm (1 in 324). The NSC thinks you're more likely to shoot yourself than anyone else.

Yeah, firearms are the method of choice for suicide. But as I've said elsewhere, it's not like the removal of firearms will eliminate the urge some people have to off themselves.

Thanks for a sane perspective. During the end of the world who needs a gun, but on the other hand, statistically speaking, in my urban town,... the right to bear arms ring true to me.

I'm not opposed to responsible gun ownership - Lord knows the genie left the bottle a long time ago on that one - but I am really tired of the notion that firearms are the one and only thing keeping us from harm and chaos. I think there's a definite reason why the Second Amendment is the second, and not the first.

1. Right view
2. Right intention 3. Right speech
4. Right action 5. Right livelihood 6. Right effort 7. Right mindfulness 8. Right concentration

Which of these involves a gun? In what way does private firearm ownership ensure the safety of the citizenship?

If a fear based choice does not serve you, let it go.

So right my friend, so right.

My clinging to fear, that my family may find peril and I will be unable to stop it from happening (which is something that could, and in all likelihood would happen whether or not I own a firearm) is a painful reminder of how much more I need to learn (or unlearn as it were).

In what way does private firearm ownership ensure the safety of the citizenship?

I believe that was the intention of the 2nd amendment. To protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves from whatever sought to take away their freedom, including the government. An armed populace is one that the government would think twice before trying to dissolve it's liberty.

Time goes on and the erosion of liberty continued and it wasn't until the were getting loaded on the trains to the death camps that they realized it would have never happened if they were armed.

This came up in another Newsvine gun-related discussion. Somebody pointed out that some weapons were smuggled into the Warsaw ghettos during the uprising. I asked about the eventual outcome. The resisters almost all died. The end result wasn't changed, just delayed.

When the government has billion dollar bombers, what are a handful of hunting rifles going to do against them?

What I love is the large swath of 2nd amendments that overlap with the neo-cons. They cling to their right to bear arms so as not to lose their other rights but while they do that they support the movement that has destroyed the 1st, 4th, 5th 8th and 10th amendments.

What is the point of having your Gun if you let the important rights go?

This came up in another Newsvine gun-related discussion. Somebody pointed out that some weapons were smuggled into the Warsaw ghettos during the uprising. I asked about the eventual outcome. The resisters almost all died. The end result wasn't changed, just delayed. I just love this sort of blithe response. They had a handful of weapons. They held off the Nazis for weeks with them. But I guess they should have given up those few weeks of freedom and docilely entered the cattle cars to be gassed.

Better to be dead quickly than to have the means and opportunity to fight for life, right?

They had a handful of weapons.

If they'd had Nazi uniforms perhaps they could have escaped instead of dying fighting (I'm being half-facetious here).

There are more than two options (going like cattle and fighting and dying) in just about any situation.

There are more than two options (going like cattle and fighting and dying) in just about any situation. Sure, I totally agree. I just don't like people limiting my options because they're too stupid or frightened to learn the first damn thing about the options they want to ban.

I'm surprised to see so many people that I normally consider to be careful and critical thinkers offer such titanically bad arguments and fallacies as though they were meaningful. It's a bit sad, really.

Like barrysrutherford, here. I see he's flogging his "$100 billion" argument, even though he was incapable of addressing the shortcomings of that argument the last time he and I discussed it. No admission of its flaws, no reconsideration of the errors of his argument-- just the same old pap regurgitated as though it were as fresh as the first day he ate it up.

Talking about guns gets boring, doesn't it?

Much more fun to shoot them (which I've only done a few times)!!!

Much more fun to shoot them (which I've only done a few times)!!! Yep. All this talk about guns-- I think I need to go to the range this Tuesday.

Well as long as that is where they are used and kept locked up on the Range thats fine with me...

Thankfully, in this country at least, what's fine with you is of absolutely no consequence to me or my rights.

Well I have to confess you got something right !

And they have a lower murder rate. Coincidence?

Less violent culture. America is full of people who are afraid of their own shadow. People that are afraid are dangerous because scared people are violent and reactive. They are also easily manipulated. It is too bad we did not heed the words of FDR.

And guns should not be in the hands of the violent and reactive and terminally terrified.

As I have said in other posts on this topic. Guns are so easy to use that anyone can shoot and kill someone. Someone that is mad,angry,confused,manic,revengeful,silly,careless the list goes on... It makes Killing. so simple so easy, yet the ramifications are dreadful for all concerned...

H- What do they use for the high suicide rate?

TJG,

that would be 80% of the legal gun owners in the US. I don't think they would like you taking their guns away.

What do they use for the high suicide rate?

Trains. That doesn't get anyone else killed, now does it?

And what about the homicide rate??

Life in Japan must be great for people who are not allowed to have guns. I would guess that when the US pulls it protective forces out completely, the need to have all types of guns will increase.

In Japan, because of their cultural penchant for subordinating the individual to society, when people commit violence, they usually do it to themselves, not to other people. Hence Japan has a suicide rate more than double that of America. Just another one of those cultural differences that Henry doesn't think exists. For the same reasons, Japan's homicide rate is lower overall (so is Europe's, and always was-- even before strict gun control-- rendering cross-cultural comparisons more difficult than the blanket assertions Henry has thrown out for people).

I'm still waiting for Henry to reveal how Japanese cultural effects can be transferred to America.

I suspect I'll be waiting for a while.

Don't be a dick.

I acknowledged the higher suicide rate below. I also showed that with a 2:93 ratio going on, there is clearly something else at work as well. Cultures always transfer, albeit slowly. You know how to change a culture? Change the way you raise children. Change the education system. If you didn't raise children to be gun-bearing killers, they wouldn't grow up to be such.

And no, this has nothing to do with violent media or video games - as they are just as popular in Japan as they are in the United States. This has to do with the examples set for children, the sensational media, the glorification of war, and other issues.

I would guess that when the US pulls it protective forces out completely,

As you well should know better Retlaw this article is about arming civilians not the military.

Don't the Swiss all have guns at their houses, and a very low homicide rate too?

Of course, like most tiny Euro countries, everyone is related to the nth (not that big of an nth) degree. It must be hard to shoot someone who looks like your cousin.

Don't be a dick. Don't be an @!$%#, and I won't be a dick, @!$%#.

I acknowledged the higher suicide rate below. I also showed that with a 2:93 ratio going on, there is clearly something else at work as well. America has 28,000 firearms deaths (17,000 of them suicides). Japan has 27,000 suicides.

Add in non-firearm suicides to America's death-toll. Your number reaches about 0.014% of the population. Compare that to the percentage of the population which commits suicide alone in Japan-- about 0.022% of the population.

The 2:93 "ratio" is pretty meaningless, if you ask me.

You know how to change a culture? Change the way you raise children. Change the education system. Oh, so now you agree with me? Well, thanks!

This has to do with the examples set for children, the sensational media, the glorification of war, and other issues. Right. Simply banning guns is insufficient. I appreciate the fact that you're now repeating what I've been saying. Maybe you aren't retarded.

The swiss do not have a standing military. All citizens are trained for military service and I am sure there are laws governing the use of such weapons.

Henry V11 pleae dont resort to this:-"dont be a D***K. "it is a breach of Newsvines COH

Actually, it doesn't. If everyone had a gun, it would be a deterrent - because criminals would know there would be consequences, so they wouldn't take the risk. In the system we have today, it's a small risk they take because not everyone has a gun... and they know that, even if you have a gun, they have one, too. So they can see that if you don't have a gun, they win. If you do have a gun, they have the element of surprise - so they win anyway.

You know how they don't win? If they don't have a gun.

You know how they don't win? If they don't have a gun.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Please define your pronouns. Who is the "they"? The criminal or the victim?

If you are endorsing the idea that unarmed citizens are safer than armed citizens, I wonder if you would be willing to wear a button that says "I'm unarmed and will not resist a criminal"?

The unarmed victims at the recent school shootings were not very safe, now where they? If the guys at the school had been armed, that shooting rampage would have been much briefer, and would have probably had one fatality- the criminal.

By the way, I'd support the idea of everybody who can be legally armed, being legally armed. IOW, no convicted criminals, domestic violence folks, or mentally ill, etc.

If you are endorsing the idea that unarmed citizens are safer than armed citizens, I wonder if you would be willing to wear a button that says "I'm unarmed and will not resist a criminal"?

Maybe... it'd certainly confuse a predator, and warfare is the way of deception!

I would challenge all you "Guns are evil" guys to put a sign in their front yard boldly proclaiming that you don't own a firearm.

I'm willing to put a sign in front of my house that says, "The owner of this home is armed; but my neighbor isn't." Would you be ok with that? Probably not.

I'm thinking something more along the lines of "My safe is unlocked....but the door is wired to a tactical nuclear warhead."

I figure if you're gonna arm up, go all out. M4, grenade launcher attachment, scope. And a katana for those close-quarter moments. People probably won't #$&% with you if they see you walking down the street with a sword.

Mike,

Clearly, I meant that the criminal would not have a gun. In Japan, I have no problem wearing a button that says I'm not armed - as no one has a gun here.

I suppose the Japanese must simply be better people than those of the Soviet Union, Turkey, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, and Cambodia. That, of there is another constant...

Wait a minute! None of those nations were a democracy - now were they? You can't attribute this to a lack of gun and communism and dictatorship and atheism, as conservatives want to do. Japan has a lack of guns and is fairly atheist, so something tells me that having too much political power in the hands of the few is the real issue here - not a lack of guns.

If you don't live under a tyrannical government, there is little need for a gun.

the key point of gun ownership is this--it is a bulwark against government tyranny. As a civil libertarian, i want the govt afraid of 300m gun owners

I'm not sure they are, or would be, though.

They aren't, because those gun owners seem to believe their nation is infallible. They would never take up arms in revolution because they simply aren't willing to risk the livelihood they have for their rights that are slowly being taken away.

What would you know about what we would or would not do? You live in Japan.

What would you know about what we would or would not do? You live in Japan.

...and, of course, all Americans act in concert as one.

:P

Headinthegame, you say

the key point of gun ownership is this--it is a bulwark against government tyranny. As a civil libertarian, i want the govt afraid of 300m gun owners

Who is the Government. A number of fellow Americans like yourself. Or buildings up there in Washington

What would you know about what we would or would not do? You live in Japan.

Far more than you sir. I can look in from the outside, unbiased by living in America.

...and, of course, all Americans act in concert as one

Even less reason for Henry to believe that he can predict what Americans would or would not do in such a situation.

Far more than you sir. I can look in from the outside, unbiased by living in America. Right. I see you trying to pass off Japanese culture and American culture as equivalent, in order to conclude that gun control in Japan is what prompts their low murder rate, and that's totally what I see-- an unbiased observer.

f you don't live under a tyrannical government, there is little need for a gun. If you DO live under a tyrannical government, it's too late to get a gun.

MichealtheGreat you say,

The unarmed victims at the recent school shootings were not very safe, now where they? If the guys at the school had been armed, that shooting rampage would have been much briefer, and would have probably had one fatality- the criminal.

this is a completely rebuttable presumption on your part in fact the Virginina Commission and the Police actually stated that more guns would have not have helped at all rather to the contrary...

I think that the only thing that separates an anti-gunner from a pro-gunner is never having been mugged.

Both get mugged. The difference is in how we think. A pro-gunner gets mugged and thinks, damn - if only I had a gun, I could have shot that guy and kept some money in exchange for his life. An anti-gunner gets mugged and thinks, damn - if only that guy didn't have a gun, we could have avoided this mess entirely.

Sorry, Henry, that's nothing but flawed logic and wishful thinking on your part.

The unarmed are prey to anyone stronger than they are. The armed are not. If you'd like me to present you with a variety of cases in which owning a weapon allowed someone to prevent themselves from being mugged, beaten, raped or killed, I will happily do so.

In the meantime, you might want to wait to offer your thoughts until you know a bit more about the subject.

The armed are prey to the armed who strike first, strike fast, and don't suffer from buck-shyness. Violence is FAST. Blink and you miss it. Gun violence is even faster. The mugger knows there's going to be a mugging LONG before you do. The mugger handles guns (or whatever) regularly, and lacks the false confidence going to the range once a week can breed.

The mugger will drop you before you even know he's there. This is his job. Your only hope is that he doesn't think you have a gun, lets you reach for it, and is a worse shot than you.

If you'd like me to present you with a variety of cases in which owning a weapon allowed someone to prevent themselves from being mugged, beaten, raped or killed, I will happily do so.

Sure, but in all of your examples - I would like proof that the criminal was also unarmed. Further, you ignore other deterrents that are non-lethal.

Henry and Onto--so you are not pro-gun. I am. Carry one daily. The problem with your 'what ifs' is that you set the scenario up so that you can predict the outcome. Life doesn't work that way.

Try setting a 'what if' up based on: predator armed with knife, prey armed with handgun; or: two predators with bats, prey with handgun; or: two predators armed with handguns, prey not armed.

But if you really want to learn about actual statistics regarding handguns, Gary Kleck of the University of Florida has done some research and concluded that the mere presence of a handgun is usually sufficient to deter predators without having to use it. Do a google on him and study his research and conclusions.

I was previously pro-gun. I was a card-holding Libertarian that felt it was the correct way to rule an educated, informed, and rational people. It is unfortunate that America, or any nation for that matter, is not constituted of such people. As a result, America has nearly 30,000 gun deaths per year. If you would like to compare that to where I live, in Japan - gun violence was up last year... We had a grand total of 66 gun deaths in 2007. Of course, Japan has a smaller population than the United States - so a nation the size of America with an equivalent number of deaths per population would have 156 gun deaths in 2007.

For every gun death in Japan, there are 192 gun deaths in the United States. The Japanese play the same video games we play. The play similar sports. They are the second wealthiest nation, while America is the first. They have a democracy. The major difference? Guns are banned. Swords and knives are allowed on one's own property, but can not be carried about.

I am anti-gun because, if I lived in America, I would be more worried about becoming one of those unnecessary, additional 29,934 gun deaths per year - than I am about the government somehow becoming more tyrannical than it already is. Even if the government became more tyrannical, it isn't as if any of the gun nuts in America would do anything about it. The government isn't worried about 300 million gun owners because Americans live too comfortably to take a risk at standing up for their rights.

Also, the government has access to weaponry that would make a handgun or a rifle (anything this side of a submachine gun) look like a toy.

And the agregate cost to the American Economy is aprroximately 100 Billlion dollars a year

here is a link to a study of the costs of Gun ownership for America

Sure, but in all of your examples - I would like proof that the criminal was also unarmed. Further, you ignore other deterrents that are non-lethal. I thought the assumption, per comments such as #9.1 or #10.1 was that all muggers always have guns, everywhere? No?

Here's an article covering a situation where a 61 year-old man attacked a 24-year old woman. The young woman had extensive training in two different martial arts. She had a dog. She was aware of her surroundings, self-possessed, confident, and did everything she could to stay alive. End result?

She was raped and killed.

Here's a case where an 80 year old man defended himself with a two-shot derringer against two assailants armed with a knife.

Here's one where a delivery man, threatened with a gun to his head, pulled his concealed weapon, defended himself, wounded his attacker, and lived to tell about it injury free.

Here's one where a 57 year old woman, assaulted from behind by a man who held a knife to her neck managed to grab her .357 off the nightstand, turn and shoot her assailant, saving her own life.

Here's one where a guy who repeatedly stabbed a woman and tried to set her on fire was stopped by a citizen armed with a handgun, and detained until police arrived. The woman lived, by the way.

Here's one where a man who was carrying concealed foiled an armed robbery attempt by a previously convicted felon.

Here's yet another, in which a homeowner thwarted an armed home invasion, and held the perp at gunpoint until the cops arrived.

In this one, armed robbers held up a convenience store, and were met with armed resistance.

Here, a man protects his daughter from two muggers merely by drawing his weapon, without firing a shot.

Here a customer with a CCW license and a gun saved a store full of folks from armed robbers.

In this one, a 64 year old guy pumping gas is confronted by a criminal with a shotgun. He draws his concealed weapon, and forces the would-be robber to flee. No one was injured...

You were saying?

If you would like to compare that to where I live, in Japan - gun violence was up last year... We had a grand total of 66 gun deaths in 2007. Of course, Japan has a smaller population than the United States - so a nation the size of America with an equivalent number of deaths per population would have 156 gun deaths in 2007. Yeah, and we all know that size and population density are the only differences between Japanese culture/society and American culture/society, right? I mean, given that the two countries are so nearly identical in every way except size and gun control laws, clearly the lower death toll is a result of their strict gun control. Right?

Anybody actually buying that argument?

am anti-gun because, if I lived in America, I would be more worried about becoming one of those unnecessary, additional 29,934 gun deaths per year - than I am about the government somehow becoming more tyrannical than it already is. Even if the government became more tyrannical, it isn't as if any of the gun nuts in America would do anything about it. You know what? Do us Americans a favor, and stay in Japan.

The mugger handles guns (or whatever) regularly, and lacks the false confidence going to the range once a week can breed. You know, a buddy and I were talking today about the experience of shooting. We figured out as a rough estimate that he fires on average 40 rounds a day compared to the normal police officer's average of about less than a hundred rounds a year. I guarantee you that both my friend and the average police officer fire way more rounds than your typical mugger, most of whom don't even mug people with a gun. Christ, I'm only an occasional shooter, going to the range every two or three weeks, and I fire what averages to be about 15 rounds a day.

You need to stop watching so many movies.

I thought the assumption, per comments such as #9.1 or #10.1 was that all muggers always have guns, everywhere? No?

In a nation that allows guns - yes. The arguments were against guns for the good and the bad. You know that, you're just being dense.

It's nice that you have about ten instances where people protected themselves with guns, but ten personal stories does not compare to the nearly 30,000 people last year that can't give a personal story - because they were killed by someone with a gun.

Yeah, and we all know that size and population density are the only differences between Japanese culture/society and American culture/society, right?

So you're willing to admit that the Japanese are simply more civilized than the Americans? I would call that a bit racist, but clearly you believe they are simply a less violent people.

You know what? Do us Americans a favor, and stay in Japan.

Oh dear. The truth hurts, doesn't it.

Iarnuocon

You know and I know that for every example that you have plucked and provided that there would an equal number of examples where the non-existence of a firearm would result in an Assault rather than a Murder. Not in America though because the prevalence of guns already makes a Murder more likely. "wow man all I had to do was pull da trigger & he was down like a sack of potatoes !"

You know that, you're just being dense.

Dense like lead, perhaps? A little too much exposure, perhaps?

Just teasing, iarnuocon. You *do* get awfully riled up, though.

The arguments were against guns for the good and the bad. You know that, you're just being dense. And you propose to ensure that the good and the bad both lack guns in America how exactly? Everyone will just blithely turn in their guns, give up hunting, sport shooting and the like, and rely on the police to protect them? And no illegal guns will enter the country through our thousands of miles of unpatrolled border which have proved so porous to bales of marijuana because why? Simply on your say so.

Which one of us is really being dense, here, Henry?

It's nice that you have about ten instances where people protected themselves with guns, but ten personal stories does not compare to the nearly 30,000 people last year that can't give a personal story - because they were killed by someone with a gun. Self defense is my right, by whatever means available. You like to shift the rhetorical focus a lot when your suppositions are shown to be bankrupt of validity, don't you, Henry? Your assertion was that, how did you put it?

they know that, even if you have a gun, they have one, too. So they can see that if you don't have a gun, they win. If you do have a gun, they have the element of surprise - so they win anyway.

...in all of your examples - I would like proof that the criminal was also unarmed. Further, you ignore other deterrents that are non-lethal.

I'm fairly certain my examples addressed all the assumptions you made-- criminals with the "element of surprise" thwarted by people defending themselves with guns, criminals with and without guns thwarted by would-be victims who happened to be armed, the purported effectiveness of non-lethal deterrents-- yeah, it looks like those were all covered.

Turns out your assumptions were a bit flawed.

30,000 people who were killed last year-- and how many of those people were killed as a result of gang-violence? How many killed as a result of the illicit drug trade? How many killed by criminals who would still have committed their crimes absent a gun? Various estimates of defensive gun uses fall between a million and 2.5 million per year. You'd like to disarm those people, turning them into victims. Near as I can tell, that would far outstrip your 30,000 victims, especially in light of the fact that you have zero chance at all of enforcing a total gun ban in America. How many of those 2 million folks would have to die before you would think maybe disarming law-abiding citizens might just by chance be a slightly bad idea? 10,000? 50,000?

You throw some half-assed numbers around, and expect people to simply buy it on your say so. I don't buy it on your say so. I've looked at the numbers and the arguments, I've looked at the way crime rates soared after Britain's total ban on handguns, and I've seen the flaws in your arguments. They're not remotely convincing to me.

So you're willing to admit that the Japanese are simply more civilized than the Americans? Lol... straw man much? Since when is noting cultural differences a matter of claiming one people is more "civilized" than another? Here are some questions for you-- would you say culturally speaking that the Japanese are more or less community oriented than Americans? Would you say that there is more or less emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities than in America? What effect would you say the high population density in Japan has had on the social mechanisms by which Japanese people manage to get along in close proximity to each other, and how do these differ from such mechanisms in American society? How are the concepts of honor and duty as they relate to Japanese society different from correlates in American society? What are the different responses to authority in the two countries, or are they identical?

These things all have an impact. You ignore them, and then have the balls to try to substitute the notion that the Japanese are more "civilized" and utter it as though it's something that I've said.

Oh dear. The truth hurts, doesn't it. When I see any evidence that you're remotely acquainted with the truth, I'll let you know. In the meantime, your assertion that I'm a racist is noted and reported as inflammatory.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, you rebel, you.

Since when is noting cultural differences a matter of claiming one people is more "civilized" than another?

When you are stating that one is peaceful and the other savage. Clearly, by your logic - the Japanese have simply a more peaceful culture. As such, they are more civilized - by your logic.

Tired of arguing with you now. I'm going for a walk, without fear or being shot.

When you are stating that one is peaceful and the other savage. Again, you seem to want to substitute your own words for mine. "Civilization" seems to have some pretty fuzzy boundaries, and I wouldn't be so stupid as to suggest that one or the other is more "civilized" without defining those terms. For instance, I could conclude that by its lack of respect for individualism and personal initiative, or by its inherent misogyny, Japanese culture is less civilized. But I'm not interested in some putative state of "civilization," which seems to be more along the lines of a game which you want to play.

I'm more interested in noting some cultural differences which may go far in explaining the differences in levels of violence experienced in the two cultures, and forms a much fuller picture than the simplistic bull@!$%# that you've offered. Conclude from that what you will (which, in itself, suggests any racism is inherent on your part, not mine).

The one thing you can't conclude from it, however, is that lower levels of violence in Japan are merely a result of strict gun control.

In case anyone (not you, I suspect) is interested in the background which makes Japan and America incommensurable on the gun control issue, here's a paper titled Japanese Gun Control which concludes, in part

Japan's gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan's gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.

Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.

Yeah, that's a totally portable system of gun control that could be exported to America. Right?

Yeah, that's a totally portable system of gun control that could be exported to America. Right?

No but some aspects of the policies could be adopted to make some of your most notorious neighbourhoods more civilised...

So culture never changes? Is that it?

So culture never changes? Is that it? Should it? That's more the question, isn't it? I don't particularly want to live in a culture which subordinates individual rights to government authority. If I was so afraid of violence that I thought that was a good idea, I might move to somewhere such as Japan, just like you. But I'd have enough sense to recognize that, refusing to move, I'm not necessarily arguing for an actual public good by saying that this country should trade off individual freedoms for safety.

To me, that's an argument of the constantly fearful.

If a culture is brutish and violent, of course it should change. You talk about government authority, but that isn't really the issue here. It's far more a sense of community and personal responsibility. When someone hates their life and wants to die in America, they often go on a killing spree - and thanks to guns, they can take out a good 30-40 people, or more, before getting arrested or killed themselves. In Japan, they care for the other members of society - so would rather kill themselves than kill others. That has a long history, but it's far more noble than a mindset so individualistic that it leads to a disregard for the life of others - in the name of personal safety.

Henry

In Japan, they care for the other members of society - so would rather kill themselves than kill others.

While you may consider that wonderful, I find it quite puzzling. But then, the ninjas would kill themselves if the ruler told them to. This I find just plain weird. But then, the US is not a very homogeneous society which can easily be controlled because the Emperor is considered god. The Japanese society evolved to its present state over centuries. And has resulted in, what I could easily call: pathetic. Each person has only rights because the Emperor was good enough to give them that right.

Perhaps you have forgotten (or didn't know) that the US is a very, very heterogeneous society, which is made up of escapees of almost every other country in the world. If those other countries had the personal freedoms which the US citizenry enjoys, perhaps there would be much few emigrants here !!!

Each person has only rights because the Emperor was good enough to give them that right.

In the words of D12: "@!$%#, are you retarded?" This isn't the 19th century.

If a culture is brutish and violent, of course it should change. And who judges which things need to change? You want to address violence in America? Address poverty. Address asinine drug laws. Address education. Until you address those things, disarming law abiding citizens will merely create a playground for criminals.

You talk about government authority, but that isn't really the issue here. Yes, it is. At least, it's one of the issues, and a not inconsequential one. No one in America, and I mean no one, would be comfortable with the level of power that police in Japan have, nor do I think they should be. Without that authority, total gun bans would be difficult to enact.

When someone hates their life and wants to die in America, they often go on a killing spree - and thanks to guns, they can take out a good 30-40 people, or more, before getting arrested or killed themselves. Define "often"-- because I'm getting a little tired of your caricatures. They're not remotely illuminating.

it's far more noble than a mindset so individualistic that it leads to a disregard for the life of others - in the name of personal safety. It's less noble than a mindset that treats individuals as rational actors responsible for their own actions. I'd rather have a society in which the government is my servant than a society in which the government is my parent. If you can't live up to that responsibility, feel free to stay in Japan.

I don't think a culture which treats its citizens like children is all that noble, lower homicide rate or no.

And enough with the left-handed insults, already. If you want to be a prick, be a prick, but don't just skirt the edge of the CoH like a big pussy. In the words of me, "man up, @!$%#."

Are you saying that Japan doesn't have issues with poverty and that their drug laws are less asinine? Quite the contrary, drug laws are far more strict in Japan. Education in Japan is better, I'll give you that - but Americans seem opposed to education these days. And it's hard to get an education if you're killed in a school shooting.

Also, you assume that criminals will have guns when law abiding citizens don't. That is a very poor assumption that shows a lack of support for the government's ability to protect the people. Why have police at all if the populous is armed?

Police in Japan don't even have guns (except the SWAT teams). What level of power are you talking about? You mean like American cops that regularly shoot innocent African Americans? How about the police brutality we see in America? Doesn't happen in Japan. Unlike in America, I find the police here to be some of the most helpful people I've met.

If you can't live up to that responsibility, feel free to stay in Japan.

The reason I left isn't because I can't live up to that responsibility, but that most other people are completely unable to live up to any responsibility. That said, you think you are only responsible to yourself. What a sad existence.

And I insulted RETLAW's lack of intelligence because such idiocy should not be tolerated.

I insulted RETLAW's lack of intelligence because such idiocy should not be tolerated. Ok, I'm willing to play by your rules.

Are you saying that Japan doesn't have issues with poverty and that their drug laws are less asinine? "@!$%#, are you retarded?" Japan's drug problem, like its poverty problem and so forth, is much smaller than that of the US. Chalk it up to being 1/30th the size of the US, along with a host of other circumstances which are different.

it's hard to get an education if you're killed in a school shooting. "@!$%#, are you retarded?" Despite regular hysteria by the media, school violence has actually been declining for the past 20 years in the US. The odds of being shot while attending school are so small as to not even register as a risk. You're more likely to accidentally smother yourself while sleeping than to be shot in a school.

Also, you assume that criminals will have guns when law abiding citizens don't. "@!$%#, are you retarded?" That was your assumption (made in #9.1, I believe). I don't particularly care whether criminals have guns or not. Some do, many do not. My point was that in the absence of guns, the larger, stronger, and more violent party wins a struggle. Guns are a force equalizer. That's why they make a good self-defense tool when properly used.

shows a lack of support for the government's ability to protect the people. "@!$%#, are you retarded?" No, seriously-- "are you retarded?" Police don't generally prevent crimes. They clean up afterward, and they solve crimes that have already been committed (among other things). Until police response time to a 911 call sinks to 0 minutes and 0 seconds, your safety is your own responsibility. People who fail to realize that generally become victims.

You probably think that squad cars all say "to protect and serve" on them, don't you?

Why have police at all if the populous is armed? "@!$%#, are you retarded?" First, it's "populace." Learn to spell. Second, the police serve a number of functions which could not be fulfilled by an armed populace-- e.g. the aforementioned solving of crimes, or (as another example) crowd and/or traffic control.

You think in very limited arcs, did you know that?

Police in Japan don't even have guns (except the SWAT teams). What level of power are you talking about? "@!$%#, are you retarded?" And illiterate? I already linked to a paper which spoke specifically to this question, up in #10.17. Apparently you don't click links. Probably because you're overly impressed with your "amazing powers of thought." Allow me to quote (since it's not apparent you know how to follow a link)

Japanese police are given broad search and seizure powers. The basic firearms law permits a policeman to search a person's belongings if the officer judges there is 'sufficient suspicion that a person is carrying a fire-arm, a sword or a knife' or if he judges that a person 'is likely to endanger life or body of other persons judging reasonably from his abnormal behavior or any other surrounding circumstances'... In practice, the special law for weapons searches is not necessary, since the police routinely search at will. They ask suspicious characters to show them what is in their purse or sack.[34] In the rare cases where a policeman's search (for a gun or any other contraband) is ruled illegal, it hardly matters; the Japanese courts permit the use of illegally seized evidence...

'Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police...' explains the Japanese National Police Agency. In twice-a-year visit, officers fill out Residence Information Cards about who lives where and which family member to contact in case of emergency, what relation people in the house have to each other, what kind of work they do, if they work late, and what kind of cars they own... The close surveillance of gun owners and householders comports with the police tradition of keeping close tabs on many private activities.[39] For example, the nation's official year-end police report includes statistics like 'Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct'. The police recorded 9,402 such incidents in 1985, and determined that 37.4 per cent of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had sex 'voluntarily'. The two leading reasons for having sex voluntarily were 'out of curiosity' for 19.6 per cent, and 'liked particular boy', for 18.1 per cent.[40] The fact that police keep records on sex is simply a reflection of their keeping an eye on everything, including guns. Every person is the subject of a police dossier...

In practical terms, there is no right to privacy against police searches. Other Western-style rights designed to protect citizens from a police state are also non-existent or feeble in Japan...

After the arrest, a suspect may be detained without bail for up to 28 days before the prosecutor brings the suspect before a judge.[42] Even after the 28 day period is completed, detention in a Japanese police station may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Rearrest on another charge, bekken taihö, is a common police tactic for starting the suspect on another 28 day interrogation process. 'Rearrest' may (p.30)occur while the suspect is still being held at the police station on the first charge. Some defendants may be held for several months without ever being brought before a judge.[43] Courts approve 99.5 per cent of prosecutors' requests for detentions.[44]

Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a suspect in custody, and those meetings are strictly limited. In the months while a suspect is held prisoner, the defense counsel may see his or her client for one to five meetings lasting about 15 minutes each. Even that access will be denied if it hampers the police investigation. While under detention, suspects can be interrogated 12 hours a day, allowed to bathe only every fifth day, and may be prohibited from standing up, lying down, or leaning against the wall of their jail cells.[45] Amnesty International calls the Japanese police custody system a 'flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles'.[46]

The confession rate is 95 per cent.[47] As a Tokyo police sergeant observes, 'It is no use to protest against power'.[48] Suspects are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and suspects commonly complain that their confession was altered after signature. The police use confession as their main investigative technique, and when that fails, they can become frustrated and angry. The Tokyo Bar Association states that the police routinely 'engage in torture or illegal treatment'. The Tokyo Bar is particularly critical of the judiciary for its near-total disinterest in coercion during the confession process. 'Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions'.[49]

In Japan, the legal system is, in effect, an omnipotent and unitary state authority. All law enforcement administrators in Japan are appointed by the National Police Agency and receive their funding from the NPA. Hence, the police are insulated from complaints from politicians or other citizens.[50] There is hardly any check on the power of the state, save its own conscience.

The reason I left isn't because I can't live up to that responsibility, but that most other people are completely unable to live up to any responsibility. Must be hard to get around, what with that gigantic chip on your shoulder. I'm glad I'm not saddled with the burden of being you.

you think you are only responsible to yourself. What a sad existence. "@!$%#, are you retarded?" What a novel rewording of what I said. Apparently you really can't read.

And I insulted RETLAW's lack of intelligence because such idiocy should not be tolerated. This prompts the question-- how do you manage to live with yourself? Gimme a second... I think I have a train schedule here, somewhere.

The odds of being shot while attending school are so small as to not even register as a risk. You're more likely to accidentally smother yourself while sleeping than to be shot in a school.

So you admit it, yet still support arming teachers and students? There is no one more insane that those that act for a principle or ideology, in the face of facts.

When I asked if RETLAW was retarded, it was due to a blatant misstatement of fact. You use the same terms to support your opinion - rather than facts. You fail.

Henry--why are you insulting:

In the words of D12: "@!$%#, are you retarded?" This isn't the 19th century.

Instead of correcting.

I think iarnuocon is correct: you fail. Both to present any kind of intelligent argument, and to completely check your supposed facts.

I don't correct things you should know. It's as if you made a post that said, "Well in Germany they're all Nazis so I tell my Jewish friends to never go there." It was idiotic and borderline racist.

So you admit it, yet still support arming teachers and students? There is no one more insane that those that act for a principle or ideology, in the face of facts. You might try actually making an argument out of this. As is, I get that you're upset, but the sentence reads as nonsense.

You use the same terms to support your opinion - rather than facts. You fail.

• Fact: Japan's drug problem is smaller than that of the US
• Fact: Japan's poverty problem is smaller than that of the US. Japan has 11.8% of it's population living below the poverty line (equated as 50% of the median income, or about $16,000 US) America has 12.3% of its population living below the poverty line (calculated as roughly $11,000 US).
• Fact: incidence of murder and school shootings is very low. During the years of the highest incidence of firearms deaths in the US in the last thirty years (the mid-nineties) the incidence of murder in schools was so low as to be unmeasurable by statistical sampling. See Table 2. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, combined figures for both homicide and suicide at school "translates into less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-aged youth at school per million students enrolled during the 1999-2000 school year." No breakout was given for what percentage of that was "firearms related."
• Fact: You suggested that criminals will always have a gun in comment #9.1-- they know that, even if you have a gun, they have one, too. So they can see that if you don't have a gun, they win. If you do have a gun, they have the element of surprise - so they win anyway.
• Fact: Guns are a force equalizer.

• Fact: The police have no obligation to protect citizens. "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.)

  And even if they did have an obligation, they are in no position to fulfill it-- Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol.(1)

• Fact-- The police serve a number of functions which could not be fulfilled by an armed populace-- e.g. the aforementioned solving of crimes, or (as another example) crowd and/or traffic control.
• Fact-- Police in Japan enjoy a level of power which would be difficult if not impossible to allow American police forces without citizens rightly seeing it as an imposition on their rights. I won't bother to repost the paragraphs of support which I've already laid out.

I use the phrase to support my statements of facts, and insult your "lack of intelligence because such idiocy should not be tolerated." You fail.

I don't correct things you should know. I, on the other hand, do. Sadly, though, you can lead a dolt to facts, but you can't make him think.

It was idiotic and borderline racist. You're entirely too free with the "racist" label. When people like yourself throw it around with such abandon, you really do rob it of some of its power. For instance, from now on, when you use the term, I'll simply dismiss it as you being an idiot. (In fact, mentally I'll substitute "Henry's an idiot" for your "this is racist" comments. Honestly.)

And who judges which things need to change?

In a democracy, the majority does. If the majority decides that you don't get to have a gun, what will you do?

In a democracy, the majority does. If the majority decides that you don't get to have a gun, what will you do? Remind people that we live in a Republic, specifically because those who founded the country want to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority. And further remind them that the government has already ruled that it does not have the obligation nor the responsibility to protect everyone, meaning that ultimately we are all responsible for our own protection.

And if they manage to make guns illegal, anyway, I'll probably do what quite a few of my libertarian friends have done, and make sure that I have a few guns stashed in various states of disassembly in various locations around the city and its environs.

In a democracy, the majority does. If the majority decides that you don't get to have a gun, what will you do?

Fight the majority.

It's not about the gun... it's about self-defense. The reason the gun is needed for self-defense, is because it is the weapon of the day. If the criminals all have guns, and the people don't, then we are all just sheep waiting for the Shepard to protect us. You may be fine with relying on others to protect you, and help you, but most of us would prefer to protect ourselves.

The reason we have the right to arm ourselves is to protect us from our "protectors" and threats alike. If the government is supposedly ran by the people, but the only people with arms are the government, then it is not run by the people.

"If guns were illegal, the world would be safer" is a bull@!$%# argument, because even if the majority outlawed guns, outlaws would have guns. If the outlaws have guns, I will have guns. If the government has guns, I will have guns. I will not let the power-greed of others put me at a major disadvantage to protect me and mine. Go ahead if you want to.

its not majority rules; there is a constitution which preserve certain rights the majority can't take away!

Thank you Head. This difference tends to get swept aside in many discussions.

its not majority rules; there is a constitution which preserve certain rights the majority can't take away!

Not true. The Constitution can be amended (even radically), even though it's not an easy process (what is it, a 2/3rds majority of states need to ratify an amendment?).

Also, it's the Courts who interpret the Constitution, and, as we've seen in the past, their interpretation may differ widely from ours.

And if they manage to make guns illegal, anyway, I'll probably do what quite a few of my libertarian friends have done, and make sure that I have a few guns stashed in various states of disassembly in various locations around the city and its environs.

Interesting to note. You place your right to bear arms above your respect for the law. Hmmmm....

The reason we have the right to arm ourselves is to protect us from our "protectors" and threats alike.

But there's an assumption that guns *will* protect you from oppressors. I don't buy that.

God is our only refuge and protection from "evil".

Interesting to note. You place your right to bear arms above your respect for the law. Hmmmm... I place my rights above respect for the government's ability to disrespect my rights. I am not a free citizen merely by the whim of the State-- although the State may have the power to take away my rights, it does not have the right to do so.

Here's a list of fairly smart fellows who believed that, as well.

I place my rights above respect for the government's ability to disrespect my rights.

What's the source of these supposed rights? Is it just the piece of paper those people signed? What makes these rights inalienable?

Rights are inherent in all people. The Constitution doesn't grant rights; it lists them in case the government ever becomes confused (such as ours has). "Inalienable" I don't quite buy, since we're all painfully aware that rights can be violated. Random house says inalienable is inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent. Inherent and absolute I'll grant. Inviolable, no, and therefore unassailable is also out.

But there's an assumption that guns *will* protect you from oppressors. I don't buy that.

God is our only refuge and protection from "evil".

Oh, THIS is where you're going to take this discussion? Jesus Christ, that is sad.

The difference between my protection and yours is that mine is not only real, but reliable as well.

Rights are inherent in all people.

In what way are they inherent? Are you saying they're genetically-programmed, or do you see a spiritual component in their being inherent?

The difference between my protection and yours is that mine is not only real, but reliable as well.

Your gun never jams, eh? You must keep it awfully clean! You never miss your target, eh? You must be some crack shot!

Your gun never jams, eh? You must keep it awfully clean! You never miss your target, eh? You must be some crack shot!

Well, I shoot my guns very rarely, and have never had one jam.... it's not that hard. Aim is also something a monkey can achieve.

Jamming and missed targets are no reason to do away with guns.... try again.

In what way are they inherent? Are you saying they're genetically-programmed, or do you see a spiritual component in their being inherent?

Of what possible relevance could this be, other than to side-track the conversation on some new religious debate? The source of rights is irrelevant. Either you believe that people have rights, or you don't. The latter do not belong in this country. They'd be much happier somewhere else, and we'd be happier without them.

Of what possible relevance could this be, other than to side-track the conversation on some new religious debate?

Not at all. In this sub-thread, we were discussing what gun-owners might do if private ownership of guns were outlawed (perhaps by Constitutional amendment). It seems like you feel like you have some inherent right to gun ownership that supersedes the law. iarnuocon says he'd likely disregard the law.

I'm genuinely curious as to from where your right springs. If you can't say, I'll just assume it's a case of it springing from your own will and volition. Of course, that is problematic, as one's own will and volition might assert a right to murder, rape, steal, etc.

Do we, or do we not live in a society? Are we or are we not beholden to the society and its collective will?

Either you believe that people have rights, or you don't. The latter do not belong in this country. They'd be much happier somewhere else, and we'd be happier without them.

To be clear, I'm a fan of the Constitution.

I'm under no illusions, though, about it. It's just a piece of paper. It only has relevance to the extent that people value what it says. None of rights it enumerates are absolutes, they are rights we have chosen to give ourselves, and which we can chose to take away from ourselves.

There's nothing inherently sacred about the Constitution, as cleverly-written as it may be.

Ah, then I apologize. That is a valid track, then.

The right to bear arms derives directly from the right of self defense, but that doesn't help much. It just changes the question to, where does the right of self defense come from? My beliefs are on the subject are that rights are inherent in sentient beings, but I also believe you're taking the wrong tack with this. Rather than seeking the source of rights, try this:

There has long been debate in the US as to whether or not the first ten amendments were inviolate, and this debate always focuses on the second. Instead, look at the other nine. What would our reaction be if someone wanted to delete the First Amendment or the Fourth? Let's say, for simplicity sake, Bush decides the First should read: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Many of us can envision that without too much trouble. So, by some devious means, he manages to ram this turd through, and they actually do amend the First to that. What's your response to that? Do we, or do we not live in a society? Are we or are we not beholden to the society and its collective will?

With any topic other than firearms, the answer is much more clear to the vast majority of us. I would certainly not surrender my freedom of religion in that situation, and I think most would agree. The passage of this hypothetical amendment is so abhorrent to the very fiber of this country that most wouldn't need to be told it's worthless; they'd know that, and ignore it.

So, to answer your questions, yes, we are a society, but no, we are absolutely NOT beholden to its collective will. This is a republic; not a democracy.

I'm under no illusions, though, about it. It's just a piece of paper. It only has relevance to the extent that people value what it says. None of rights it enumerates are absolutes, they are rights we have chosen to give ourselves, and which we can chose to take away from ourselves.

All rights are absolute, or they are not rights, they're privileges.

Thanks for your thoughts, Griff.

I guess what I'm saying is that this all boils down to will. Are you *willing* to give up your guns? Are we *willing* to give up our First Amendment rights? Some would argue we already are based on interpretation of--if not a rewriting of--the Amendment(s).

I can respect it if someone says, "I simply won't give up my guns (drugs, whores, etc.)". It seems dishonest to hide behind Constitutional rights, though, when one's will to do what one wants to do trumps the law in one's own sight.

All rights are absolute, or they are not rights, they're privileges.

Rights are very important as long as they are not abused as they were originally intended. Unfortuneately many push the envelope and forget the responsibilities that go along with all rights...-

Barry, we finally agree on something.

Wow... attacking me without attacking my arguments. Good call!

Just know that I will never be assaulted by a criminal with a gun as long as I live here, so I don't have to worry about this issue at all. I have experience living somewhere that guns are banned. Guess what! Criminals aren't out ruling the streets and shooting people up. In fact, violent crime is so low that a simple stabbing makes the national news.

Henry...from your posts you appear to be intelligent, and I'm sure you can do a better job at presenting a rational argument. If not, please stop wasting everybody's time with your posts. They really aren't productive.

Ironically, the only unproductive post I've seen here is yours, TWP924 (and now mine).

In fact, violent crime is so low that a simple stabbing makes the national news.

Just watch out for doomsdayers with sarin gas, eh?

Henry, I am not sure where you're getting your numbers of 30,000 from. Here is the FBI chart on firearm related homicide. from 1975 through 2005. Gun deaths peaked at less than 14,000 in mid 1990's and dropped to less than 9,000 in the years after 1996. There is an average of 30,000 murders a year in the US, however, 2/3rds of those homicides are committed with objects other than guns.

uncleandy

2/3rds of those homicides are committed with objects other than guns.

The charts of the FBI which you quote do not conclude that !

The 30,000 number included all gun deaths - homicide, suicide, and accidents.

Henry VI. Exactly right this is where the pro-gun lobby use their smoke and mirrors technique. By seperating out total deaths by use of firearms into smaller sections such as homicides,accidents and suicides with firearms. Them they try and compare these with other reasons for deaths in order to substantiate their non-existent logic

Onto--actually a criminal is more of a coward than you may think.

I don't need a gun. I know I can deal.

Really?? In more than 40 states, concealed carry is allowed. How will the predator know that you are NOT armed??

Onto--actually a criminal is more of a coward than you may think.

First of all, stop assuming that all members of any given class share ANY characteristics. Some criminals are cowardly. Some law-abiding citizens are brave. Some gun owners are violent sociopaths. But in no case can you - in a real world scenario - claim "all" without tautologically referencing the group definition itself.

Secondly, cowards are MORE dangerous because they're LESS predictable:

How will the predator know that you are NOT armed??

The coward - predator, assuming that I MAY BE armed, will kill me before I know there's danger afoot.

And you started off so well, with in no case can you - in a real world scenario - claim "all" without tautologically referencing the group definition itself to then fall prey to the very thing you complain about The coward - predator, assuming that I MAY BE armed, will kill me before I know there's danger afoot..

"Coward-predators" generally do not seek to attack armed people. It goes against intuitive risk/reward analyses. There are too many weak and unarmed potential victims to make the risk seem worth the likely payoff. Most people in our society, despite the passage of concealed carry legislation in 40 states, are unarmed. If a predator "assumes" you are armed, there's a high probability that he's going to look for one of the other 98% of the population who is not. Many criminals themselves have confirmed that this is the case, in fact.

It goes against intuitive risk/reward analyses.

Yeah. These people are where they are today because they don't make the best choices to begin with - and fear makes people MORE dangerous, not less dangerous.

Again, guns will not prevent you from being victimized, and gun control won't prevent you from being victimized. It's a false dilemma - the danger being in the ILLUSION of safety. You're not safe. You're never safe. Life is not a safe prospect. So don't worry about it.

Zombie,

then why worry about who carries guns? If you're not going to be safe, what is wrong with everyone carrying a loaded weapon? We're all doomed anyway, let's have fun with it.

Again, guns will not prevent you from being victimized, and gun control won't prevent you from being victimized. It's a false dilemma - the danger being in the ILLUSION of safety. You're not safe. You're never safe. Life is not a safe prospect. So don't worry about it.

That's what I say, as well.

If you're not going to be safe, what is wrong with everyone carrying a loaded weapon? We're all doomed anyway, let's have fun with it.

Yeah. Briefcase nukes for all!!

;)

And here's where we equivocate "safer" with "safe." I don't think anyone said "guns will make you safe."

Everyone having a gun will not make ME safer. Most of you (the public) can't even drive.

Everyone having a gun will not make ME safer.

Actually, if everyone had a gun, then you'd be safe from being mugged unless you advertise your fear of firearms. When the criminals don't know who is armed, they tend to think twice about assaulting/robbing/raping strangers.

And the fact that you are scared of firearms and violence is not our fault. Nothing will make you safer, you don't seem to desire safety over self-righteousness.

I don't desire safety over anything. Life isn't a safe proposition; it'd been safest to have died at birth. But your guns still don't make me safer.

But I'm not overly concerned with that. I'm more concerned with helping people who buy into the illusion that guns will make them more safe, or that a lack of guns will make them more safe.

I don't desire safety over anything. Life isn't a safe proposition; it'd been safest to have died at birth. But your guns still don't make me safer.

No, they make me safer when I am holding them. My guns are not for your safety.

But I'm not overly concerned with that. I'm more concerned with helping people who buy into the illusion that guns will make them more safe, or that a lack of guns will make them more safe.

Yeah, it's a big ol' dangerous world. Nice discovery!

I could but it would have to be a real in my face fight for my way of life and my survival, not this rhetorical crap that the Republicans are pushing.

Bee: Why not?
Murderers aren't human. They're goblins. Your life is worth more then theirs.

Murderers aren't human. They're goblins. Your life is worth more then theirs.

Sounds like a goblin attitude.

Mega-dittoes!

Fear is a good excuse not to actually connect with our fellow human beings, isn't it?

While I try not to live in fear, being harried is my excuse for not doing all the crap I know I ought to be doing.

Yeah! While you're at it - before you condemn rape, go out and rape someone! [/sarcasm]

Wow, Henry. You mean that in Japan raping someone is a right? No wonder their crime rate is so low.

No, of course not - but why limit it to rights? How about heroin? Perhaps you should try that before condemning it. How about weed? Alcohol? Meat? All are bad for you, but some are "rights" while some are not. Why should you trust your ancestors that rape is bad any more than you should trust those that live in a post-gun nation that guns are bad?

My head is spinning. I think I'm dehydrated.

Well, I'm off to have a weekend (if possible).

Y'all have fun, now. Don't nobody get shot!

why limit it to rights? How about heroin? Perhaps you should try that before condemning it. How about weed? Alcohol? Meat? All are bad for you, but some are "rights" while some are not. Why should you trust your ancestors that rape is bad any more than you should trust those that live in a post-gun nation that guns are bad? Seriously? That's the depth of your argument?

Hmmmm... let's see... how are these things different? Who do they affect?

Shooting heroin? Me.
Smoking pot? Me.
Alcohol? Me, again.
Eating meat? Also me.
Raping someone? Uh... not me?

I can't believe that you're actually trying to defend that comparison. Tell me that you're just pretending to be that stupid, please.

guns are bad Guns are a tool. Tools are neither good nor bad, they're just tools. What people DO with tools can be good or bad, but that's a problem of the person doing good or bad things, not inherent in the tools which they use.

Again, please tell me that you're only pretending to be this dense.

Are you saying that "you" don't affect others?

Anyway, enjoy our guns. I'll enjoy life without constant fear.

Are you saying that "you" don't affect others? Not at all. But I doubt that you're willing to admit the distinction between rights, which are inherent to the individual, and the violation of rights, which extends beyond the individual. Rape is the latter. Equating that, as you have done, with an admonishment to exercise one's rights is an example of extremely poor logic, if it could be called logic, at all.

Anyway, enjoy our guns. I'll enjoy life without constant fear. I manage to enjoy both. But maybe that's just me.

If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't cling to your gun. It's that simple.

Henry: Sometimes fear is a part of life. Maybe not so much for you, but sometimes bad @!$%# happens.
An example: Years and years ago, I tried to help this girl quit heroin. She kept clean, for a while, but relapsed as addicts do. I made it clear I didn't want to hear from her when she wasn't clean. About one in the morning, I get a phone call from her, she's sobbing, saying some dude hit her, and she locked herself in the bathroom. She wants me to come down and pick her up. So, I had to drive down to one of the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore, knock on the door of a CRACK HOUSE, get my friend, and get the hell out of there, preferably without any new bullet or knife holes in either of us. @!$%# yes, I was afraid.

Have you ever had anyone point a gun at you, for the $23 in your wallet? Living in Baltimore, I was mugged twice at gunpoint and once at knifepoint. I've gotten the @!$%# kicked out of me because I was a white boy walking down the wrong street.

You tell me I should live without fear after you've had to hide in the kitchen of a restaurant just because five @!$%#s decided they didn't like you very much, followed you into a parking lot, and broke a couple of your ribs with a baseball bat.

And you know what? I'm not afraid. I didn't let the bad @!$%# that happened effect my life. But sometimes it pays to be prepared for the worst. Its like having a fire extinguisher. You're not constantly afraid of there being a fire, but you prepare in case there is.

(PS. Man do I love living in Boston! People ask me if I'll ever move back. Holy hell, no! The worst thing thats ever happened to me here is a random drunken Irish guy kissed me on St. Patrick's day.)

Fear is the destroyer of reason.

So, no real response then? Because restating the same nonsense isn't what I'd call a very good argument.

Listen, it's not a fear thing, its a prevention of fear thing. I don't worry about my house burning down, but I still have a fire extinguisher. I don't worry about people breaking into my house, but I still lock the door. You take reasonable precautions against risk. Its a risk that someone is gonna try and kill me for my bicycle. Keeping a tool for self defense is a reasonable precaution.

So yes, I need a gun. Take what I've already described, and then add on the fact that shooting is FUN, and I can go out and snag a deer to eat, and if you've never had venison... it's DELICIOUS.

Maybe you can manage a rational rebuttal lasting more then a sentence? No?

If it's nonsense, then you're calling all of neuroscience nonsense. I'm sure you know far better than neuroscientists, though. After all, you're gut tells you it's so - therefore, it must be.

You gun does nothing for you if someone walks up behind you and shoots you in the head. You know what would do something for you? Not having that gun pointed at you in the first place.

Venison is gamey. Yak is where it's at.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Guns = No fear Fear +guns = more fear

Use a gun to conquer fear
A potential temporary cure, for the inevitable.
I find not fault in this, I am human, too.

Thank you H.VII for the prose

But I'm not afraid, my point is there are situations you can get into out there that you should rightly be afraid of. A firearm is one of the ways to be ready for those situations.

"You gun does nothing for you if someone walks up behind you and shoots you in the head."
No. It doesn't. But it could be DAMN useful if I were, for example, in a restaurant into which a maniac drives a truck and proceeds to shoot a ton of people. A gun isn't the answer to everything, its a tool that can improve your chances of survival if the worst were to happen.

The time I was mugged by a guy with a knife, I had a knife as well. I sure as hell wasn't going to pull it until I thought the guy was actually going to assault me, because a knife fight is a really nasty situation to be in. As it turned out, I handed over my wallet and walked away. You know what would've happened if I had a gun? I would've handed over my wallet and walked away. I don't know if I could draw and fire on somebody standing a few feet away from me before they managed to stab me someplace uncomfortable. Its a last-chance thing, if someone is going to try and take my life, I'm not going to give it up without a fight.

I know, first hand, how logic goes away when you're afraid. You either fight back or run, and I've gotten pretty damn lucky running my ass off so far. But I can say, now, rationally and unafraid, that if my back were to the wall and there was no place to run, I still wouldn't want to give up my life without a fight. A gun gives me my best chance in that fight. You seem to think that just because I own a (well, several) guns, I live in perpetual fear, without any reason. This is absurd.

Rationally, why do I want a gun to defend myself? Because I think that I'm better than the people that would try and take my life. I get funny looks from people when I say things like that. If someone is trying to kill me, I'd like to think I wouldn't even hesitate to kill them to save myself or any of my loved ones, because a murderer isn't a person, its an evil little creature who's life isn't worth 1/10th of mine, or my friends, or my familys. There are 'people' out there that do these sorts of things, and yeah, I want to be ready for them. But I'm not afraid of them, because, first of all, I know my chances are pretty good I won't get into that kind of situation, and secondly because I know that IF I DO, I'll be prepared.

Are you saying you'll gladly give up your life when somebody decides they want your sneakers, because thats logically where your reasoning ends up.

There is a difference between fear, caution and ignorance. I like to think I'm cautious. You're just sticking your head in the sand and pretending that these sorts of things don't happen, and that doesn't help anybody.

So, I choose to defend myself. Guns are the best way to do that. I guess you can hope you get lucky with your crysknife or gom jabbar or something.

(My name is a killing word.) :P

Angela:

Guns = No fear Fear +guns = more fear

Use a gun to conquer fear
A potential temporary cure, for the inevitable.
I find not fault in this, I am human, too.

Guns in the hands of people that wish to cause fear... causes more fear. They're just tools.
Sometimes being afraid is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to be. It's part of the instincts that keep you alive, tell you that walking down a dark alley at 2am is a bad idea. It tells you to run away when you're in danger, or fight when you can't run. Sometimes you've just got to fight back.

Thank you H.VII for the prose

Its from Frank Herbert's "Dune," and its all well and good for a Bene Gesserit witch, but not especially useful in the world we live in.

If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't cling to your gun. I have never seen you make a more idiotic assertion, Henry. It's that simple. Let's broaden the basic concept a bit, and see whether it actually is valid--

• If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't purchase insurance
• If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't wear your seatbelt while driving
• If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't wear a motorcycle helmet
• If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't mount fire-extinguishers in your buildings
• If you really lived without fear, traffic signals would consist of green and red, only
• If you really lived without fear, you wouldn't support government agencies such as fire departments or police forces
• if you really lived without fear, you wouldn't [x] where [x] is any precautionary measure designed to address a specific circumstance, should that circumstance ever arise

To me, that looks like an emotional yet intellectually bankrupt argument. People who purchase insurance, wear seatbelts, and pay taxes in order to have things such as fire departments aren't "fearful." Neither, in general, are people who own guns.

As JordanG said, you take reasonable precautions against risks, but this does not make you "fearful."

If it's nonsense, then you're calling all of neuroscience nonsense. I'm sure you know far better than neuroscientists, though. That's not a counter-argument, it's a (somewhat cryptic) attempt at using an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. You might want to elaborate on why you think "neuroscience" has anything to do with Jordan's or my statements, and then we'll see whether there's more to that argument than rhetorically invalid assertion.

You gun does nothing for you if someone walks up behind you and shoots you in the head. So what? Your fire alarm doesn't do anything for you if your battery is dead. Your seatbelt doesn't do anything for you if your car slides over a 1000 foot tall cliff. We can make up all sorts of scenarios in which all sorts of precautions are moot. Do those fictional scenarios invalidate the precautions under all circumstances?

Only a fool would say so.

iarnuocon,

I think the only thing that Henry said that could be considered "idiotic" is that he spoke in absolutes. I agree with the sentiment though. Most gun owners and 2nd amendment evangelists are the same people who fall in lock step with the government when they are told a scary story by someone at a podium.

Do you think that simply because you say "most" instead of "all", you're not committing the same sort of fallacy? I know quite a few gun owners, and I don't think that any of them could be predicted to "fall in lock step with the government" when they are "told a scary story by someone at a podium." Maybe it's the class of people that I choose to associate with. Or perhaps it is that the idea that most gun owners would "fall in lock step with the government when told a scary story" is itself a story conveniently created so as to lessen the necessity on the part of 2nd Amendment repealers to have to engage in any sort of rational thought.

That caricature is dismissive, insulting, and-- near as I can see from my own personal experience-- flatly untrue. It certainly calls into question whether either of you knows very many gun owners. In Henry's case, living in a country which has nearly no guns, I think that's a given.

When one of the prime reasons given by "2nd Amendment evangelists" for retaining the 2nd Amendment is "to safeguard against the rise of a tyrannical government," it's a bit misguided to claim that those same people are, by definition, overly trusting of the government.

Iarnuocon

Again, please tell me that you're only pretending to be this dense.

This is attacking the critic and not the argument
iaruocon and

Seriously? That's the depth of your argument?

Hmmmm... let's see... how are these things different? Who do they affect?

Shooting heroin? Me.
Smoking pot? Me.
Alcohol? Me, again.
Eating meat? Also me.
Raping someone? Uh... not me

?
This is the fallacy of composition or as You like to say comparing apples with oranges...

Iarnuocon, Sorry, but I think I am right about what I speak. most people who freak about about the 2nd Amendment being infringed turn a blind eye to our important rights being taken from us. They even argue in favor of it.

I do know many gun owners. Most of them fall into the republican category and are republican because the GOP has done a great job of lambasting the Democrats as Anti-2nd amendment. So you have people who want to keep their guns being scared into supporting a political group bent on destroying the most important rights that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect.

Due to this ideological issue, if the Republicans actual succeeded in transitioning to a tyranny, those gun owners would be fighting against the rebles.

This is attacking the critic and not the argument Claiming that suggesting someone should "try rape" is in any way synonymous with telling someone they should exercise their rights is, frankly stupid. And if you can't understand why that is, well... it leads to a similar conclusion about you. I'm willing to entertain the notion that the stupidity is feigned merely for the purpose of attempting to make a rhetorical point, hence the question.

This is the fallacy of composition On the contrary, it is not. You might want to look up the definition of the fallacy of composition, and avoid using it to label arguments you don't like, until you're competent to judge whether the label is applicable. Just a thought.

The first four examples are arguable as to whether they are rights purely from the essential fact that the only person they affect is the person committing the act. (I tend to think that none of them is a right, but that's not germane to the argument.) Whether I shoot heroin, drink alcohol, eat meat or smoke pot, the person affected by those actions is merely myself. Raping someone, on the other hand, violates someone else's rights, and so inherently cannot be considered a right. Not under any circumstances. Not ever.

Apples and oranges? Exactly. Henry's argument is invalid because he's attempting to claim these things all have the same properties when they demonstrably do not.

Sorry, but I think I am right about what I speak. And I think I am right about what I speak. Since we have contradicting opinions about this, we can't both simultaneously be right. How to resolve this issue? I suggest we turn to evidence.

most people who freak about about the 2nd Amendment being infringed turn a blind eye to our important rights being taken from us. What qualifies as "most people" in this instance, and how do you know whether you've measured correctly? Where's your evidence?

Most of them fall into the republican category and are republican because the GOP has done a great job of lambasting the Democrats as Anti-2nd amendment... Was this an informal poll you conducted, or do you have actual results? What was the sample size? What's the band of precision of your results?

I speak half-facetiously, but I think the point I'm making should be clear-- you're substituting your personal opinion for fact, and then expecting me to take it as fact without support. I don't roll that way.

So you have people who want to keep their guns being scared into supporting a political group bent on destroying the most important rights that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect. Due to this ideological issue, if the Republicans actual succeeded in transitioning to a tyranny, those gun owners would be fighting against the rebles. And yet, they could still support this group and not necessarily "fall in lock step with the government" should the government actually turn tyrannical, which simply belies your assertion.

You're assuming that if the Republican party changed its goals and instituted some sort of coup, individual Republicans must, of course, be forced to support that by virtue of being "Republicans." But the nature of that "republicanism" would have substantially changed, bringing about the possibility that those folks you assume would march in lock step might simply cease being nominally part of the party.

So far you haven't offered any evidence to suggest that they would "march in lock step."

(For what it's worth, and in an effort to help educate barry about fallacies, what you've committed, BMS, is a fallacy called Hasty Generalization.)

And I think I am right about what I speak. Since we have contradicting opinions about this, we can't both simultaneously be right. How to resolve this issue? I suggest we turn to evidence.

And the evidence is that the death rate from firearms in the United States is 93 times higher than it it in Japan.
And that the death rate from firearms in the United States is in the Order of 30,000 per annum. The total and permanent disability from injuryin the United States from Firearms is many times higher.

Hey barry? Don't bother. I've already been on your merry-go-round before, and so I know that you're allergic to facts and logic. We've had this discussion, and you pretended then, just as you pretend now, that a gun ban would eliminate all those deaths. There's no rational reason for thinking so.

Likewise, you pretend that the cultural differences between America and Japan have no impact in the difference in overall rates of violent crimes. But that's just your ignorance, and isn't particularly compelling to anyone.

I've got trees to plant. Maybe later I'll dig up our last conversation, and just link to it so that anyone interested can go review our respective positions. That way we won't have to bog people down with repostings of the same arguments we've already presented to each other.

iarnuocon,

I am speaking in generalities and using opinion words, so I don't think I am trying to boast facts to you. If I wanted to pose such a fake argument to you then I would make up numbers, but I respect you too much to attempt it.

If I was a sociologist or political scientist I would certainly be interested in studying this with properly conducted polling. I can't do that however as I am much too busy trying to assist in keeping the IT infrastructure of a hospital system moving.

What I do pull on is that strong 2nd amendment support is part of the Republican Talking Points and platform, The Republican Party has been complicit in the destruction of most of the bill of rights, Republican voters have supported the goons who perpetrate these acts, and then I pull from my experience that almost all 2nd Amendment evangelists are Republican. I then form a deductive equation and conclude that 2nd Amendment evangelists argue the 2nd Amendment is necessary to protect the rest of our freedoms yet they are complicit in their destruction by supporting the Republican Party.

If I had some poll statistics that showed my personal experience has merit in factual reality my argument would be a lot stronger.

iarnuocon you say here at 16.24#

Hey barry? Don't bother. I've already been on your merry-go-round before, and so I know that you're allergic to facts and logic. We've had this discussion, and you pretended then, just as you pretend now, that a gun ban would eliminate all those deaths.

Too true we have been on this merry go round before. But please, please don't assume to know what I think. For one I have never said that a gun ban would eliminate all death's. Only those that are made with a firearm or gun. Now as I have said before that is 30,000 approx in America as an average year by year now for quite some time. This comes from Official figures. Other people more learned than myself including academics who study the subject full-time are more capable than me and you of making assertions of what will happen and what wont happen. What we do know is that if nothing changes then the facts will remain. Americans will continue to kill each other by the use of firearms around about 30,000 per year. Thats logic, not fallacy not pretend.

I am speaking in generalities and using opinion words, so I don't think I am trying to boast facts to you. If I wanted to pose such a fake argument to you then I would make up numbers, but I respect you too much to attempt it. Then let's agree to use "in my opinion" where we are stating things based on opinion, and attempt to eliminate the use of words such as "all" or "most" when referring to groups of individuals. They're groups of individuals, not monolithic entities. Saying "all" of a group, or "most" of a group implies that you have some actual knowledge about the relative percentages, when in fact you do not.

What I do pull on is that strong 2nd amendment support is part of the Republican Talking Points and platform, The Republican Party has been complicit in the destruction of most of the bill of rights, Republican voters have supported the goons who perpetrate these acts, and then I pull from my experience that almost all 2nd Amendment evangelists are Republican. Ok. First, both Republican and Democrat parties have been complicit in the erosion of the Bill of Rights, which-- contrary to your assertion-- has not been "destroyed" as of yet. Secondly, unless you're willing to present me with evidence, I do not accept that "almost all 2nd Amendment evangelists are Republicans." The ones I know happen to be about evenly split between Libertarians and Republicans. Several, such as myself, are Democrats.

I then form a deductive equation and conclude that 2nd Amendment evangelists argue the 2nd Amendment is necessary to protect the rest of our freedoms yet they are complicit in their destruction by supporting the Republican Party. Look, I'm with you that the erosion of civil liberties that we've experienced over the last few decades is a bad thing. And yet, at the same time, I'm quite aware that many Republicans will claim that no such erosion has actually occurred. Are Americans being marched into camps? Have you, personally, suffered any violation of your rights? No? Then you should understand that what many Republicans might support right now and what Republicans possibly would do should the government start behaving seriously repressively could be two different things, entirely. Therefore, I can't accept as valid your "deduction" that "most 2nd Amendment evangelists" would fall into "lock step with the government" if it turned into a tyrannical behemoth.

barry please, please don't assume to know what I think. For one I have never said that a gun ban would eliminate all death's. Only those that are made with a firearm or gun. See? This is yet another example where you simply do not read what is written. Allow me to repeat--

Iarnuocon.

Ive looked back at what was said in the Arming the Academics debate. I said that the removal of guns would eliminate many of those killed now with a firearm In other words let me make it quite clear thousands of those thirty thousand a year would be alive today if it was not for the readily available use of Firearms and ammunition. Over a decade this would be a significant number of lives saved. Not counting the other costs.
You maintain that there would be a "substitution effect." I said studies have shown that their is little if any substitution effect. As least not enough to warrant a blanket statement that there would be . I said more studies were being undetaken by more than fifty academics in 1972 there was 1 academic. Now you show me anywhere in the literature where there is a proven substitution effect. I know you wont because you cannot. I have studied the literature and none exists at this point in time...

Further you dont accept appeals to Authority but you demand evidence which I provide through those Authority's. Then as I said before you go onto dismiss the evidence as being false without proving even on the balance of probabilities with other evidence that they are false incomplete and so on and so forth.

p.s. To your other point Just because the number of guns in the community increases there is not automatic correlation with an increase in death's. There would naturally reach a point where there would be more guns than people. If there is more than one gun per person then only one gun needs to be used...

Blaming both major parties for erosion of rights does not wash the hands of anyone and the Republican party has been almost singularly involved in the erosion, and yes I say destruction of the most important ones. When a president can commit the crimes he has against his fellow citizens, the rights that protected those citizens have been destroyed.

As to our current situation, you are using the fallacy of "we are not being marched into camps" as if tyranny is thrown on a democracy like that. If you asked the German citizens after the war was over how they could allow for such horrible atrocities and tyrannical governance to occur, they would have told you that it happened in little bits and each step did not seem like a big deal by itself so my overreaction to attacks on freedom and human dignity is not really an overreaction.

As to my rights being violated, they may very well have been. Bush has been wiretapping phone conversations since his first months in office, the FBI and Military have spied on citizen groups and he has been spending my money on faith based programs, many of which were not "charitable giving". Free speech zones that are miles from the site of the political activity are methods to silence dissent and break the spirit of free association and freedom of speech while not breaking the letter of the law.

In other words let me make it quite clear thousands of those thirty thousand a year would be alive today if it was not for the readily available use of Firearms and ammunition. Thank you for modifying your position. It's refreshing to know that you no longer maintain that all 28,000 people per year would be alive purely due to the absence of firearms.

You maintain that there would be a "substitution effect." I said studies have shown that their is little if any substitution effect. And I showed why I think those studies are seriously flawed.

As least not enough to warrant a blanket statement that there would be I'm sorry, but your study is insufficient evidence to counter the common sense notion that suicidal people will find a way to commit suicide. Just because a gun is absent doesn't change the circumstances in which they find themselves, nor the fact that they desire to kill themselves. An endless variety of methods for doing so are easily available in the absence of a gun. Ipso facto, unless you can provide robust evidence against a substitution effect (which you have NOT done), then I think the base position logically must be that the 16,000 firearms related suicides would experience a significant substitution effect in the absence of guns.

Concluding otherwise without rock-solid proof merely constitutes wishful thinking on your part.

Now you show me anywhere in the literature where there is a proven substitution effect. This fallacy is called Shifting the Burden of Proof. You make a counterintuitive claim, and then demand that I provide evidence that you are wrong. Sorry. You need to provide evidence that you are right.

you go onto dismiss the evidence as being false without proving even on the balance of probabilities with other evidence that they are false incomplete and so on and so forth. Like I said, you are fairly immune to logic of any sort, so I don't intend to rehash that argument, blow by blow. If you want to, you can link to it, and people can read our respective positions there and decide for themselves whether you assertions bear any weight.

To your other point Just because the number of guns in the community increases there is not automatic correlation with an increase in death's. There would naturally reach a point where there would be more guns than people. If there is more than one gun per person then only one gun needs to be used... There's not an automatic correlation, true, but if the number of people who owned guns even stayed the same, one would not expect to see a decrease in violent crimes, presuming that gun ownership was responsible for a significant proportion of it. Which makes the follwing facts damned inconvenient--

Iarnuocon

An endless variety of methods for doing so are easily available in the absence of a gun. Ipso facto, unless you can provide robust evidence against a substitution effect (which you have NOT done), then I think the base position logically must be that the 16,000 firearms related suicides would experience a significant substitution effect in the absence of guns.

Concluding otherwise without rock-solid proof merely constitutes wishful thinking on your part.

Here we go again on the substitution argument. As I said previously in Arming the Academics some studies have shown there is no Substition effect. You claim there is! We wont really know this until guns are removed and this can be monitored,scrutinized and analyses in Academic literature. Until then neither you no me can really claim their is or is not a substitution effect. What we do know relates to European studies as I alluded to before. What we also know is that guns are the number one choice for suicide For the reasons I outline in Arming the Academics. As such because guns are so successful and that the failure rate is negegible whereas other methods the failure rate other than jumping over a cliff is much higher.
here you go on to quote FBI Crime statisitcs

The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 2004. In 2004, the violent crime rate fell to a 30-year low, lower than any time since 1974. The murder rate fell to a 39-year low, lower than any time since 1965. The 2004 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 39%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 44%; rape, 24%; robbery, 50%; and aggravated assault, 33%. Between 2003-2004, the violent crime rate declined 2.2%. Concurrently, the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics crime victimization survey found that violent crime is lower than anytime since 1973, when the first such survey was conducted.

these are intersting crime statistics but do not show or demonstrate anything about the use or ownership of firearms. Sorry nice try but??

Here we go again on the substitution argument. You brought it up, so stop whining. And frankly, I have no intention of riding your merry go-round. Anyone who wants to see the respective arguments can do so here.

We wont really know this until guns are removed and this can be monitored,scrutinized and analyses in Academic literature. Then I guess we won't really know this.

these are intersting crime statistics but do not show or demonstrate anything about the use or ownership of firearms. Sorry nice try but?? Like I said, I don't intend to ride your merry-go-round, again. The simple correlation between guns and crime which you and others suggest would imply "more guns, more crime." That turns out not to be the case. I suggest you go back to the drawing board.

I'm done responding to you. The days-long argument we had before wasn't remotely entertaining, and you chose to simply ignore pretty much any substantive argument I made then, in favor of simply repeating yourself. And as near as I can tell, you're primed to pick right back up with that same tactic. Have fun. I do not see that as remotely fruitful. Until you address the questions posed to you back then, you and I are done talking about this subject.

Iarnuocon, As I said before you made the substantive argument that a 'substitution effect' would in fact take place if guns are removed. THis is a convenient gut reaction on your part which has not been proven So hense you can imply that it exist but until it is you are unable to take comfort in that...

And the grocery store is just so inaccessible?

Henry, you would do well to accept differences. You do want people to accept yours, don't you?

That would depend on whether those differences are morally questionable. If I'm different in a way that would be considered negative by the educated and the rational, I would prefer someone did not simply accept those differences any more than we accept murder.

Henry, you'll get scant traction setting yourself up as the final arbiter. You'll come to see this eventually.

backroads this applies to you too....

Henry, you truly are perplexing. To

My friends need them for hunting,

You responded:

And the grocery store is just so inaccessible?

Which I find absolutely hilarious. The implication of your statement is that instead of hunting, one should go to the grocery store to find meat instead of hunting. Maybe in Japan, there are grocery stores that provide live meat. Not in the US. Plenty of meat at the grocery store. But someone had to raise it, slaughter it, butcher it. These are bloody things that must happen to prepare the meat for delivery to the grocery store here in the good old US. Obviously, you failed to remember (or didn't know) that someone else had to do the dirty work to get that meat ready for you.

In this world, there still are a few people who want to preserve the old traditions of hunting, killing, and butchering the food they will eat.

Oh, I forgot, in Japan, most everyone eats only fish (which someone else had taken from the ocean, slaughtered, and butchered for them).

Maybe in Japan, there are grocery stores that provide live meat. Not in the US. Plenty of meat at the grocery store. But someone had to raise it, slaughter it, butcher it.

Guess what? None of that requires a gun.

P.S. Your anti-Japan sentiment just makes your arguments weaker and weaker.

Barry, I realize you oppose guns, but I wonder whether your fear extends to hunting and a kneejerk demand that all see your point alone.

retlaw, hunters also number among those who preserve species and enhance habitat. Many are unaware of that.

Look they have a place on the Rifle range. For farmers, for the police and the military, that's it.

Henry--It is too bad that the only thing that you can come back with is to accuse me of being 'anti-Japan'. You obviously cannot provide any response to my pointing out that you eat food which you do nothing to acquire except to purchase. Someone else has done all the dirty work to prepare any meat or fish. That's ok, most people don't. You don't have to be embarrassed by that fact. You do have to realize that we all live in a world that has become much more 'civil' by allowing others to do our 'dirty work'. But some of us still take on the job (sport) of hunting, shooting, gutting, and transporting our meat home. It links us to the past and provides great recreation.

You have chosen to live in a society that has been controlled for centuries. You will always be an outsider there (I make the assumption that you do not look oriental). I hope you are accepted there as well as they are accepted in the US.

And you can continue to oppose owning/possessing/carrying handguns, if you must. But do understand that any safety that you enjoy where you are comes from a controlled society that does not have the freedoms the US provides. That's not anti-anything, just fact.

RETLAW, can you read? My first reply was to your point. Butchering meat never requires a gun. Honestly, how can someone be so illogical?

Your statements were anti-Japan, so I called them out as such. Deal with it.

It's quite disappointing when people who have never been to Japan seem to know so much about it. Just like people who live in America seem to know so much about what would happen if they didn't have guns, despite that hasn't happened in any other democratic nation that has banned or restricted them. And then those people say that deferring to authority is a logic fallacy?

To those people, I really hope you never go to see a doctor. Doing so is apparently a logical fallacy. The anti-intellectualism pains me.

Henry---why don't you go and reread 10.26, then tell me more about 'anti-japan'. Too bad you substitute insults for arguments.

Apparently the Japanese are happy living in that controlled society (10.26). And, by living there, you are also. Good luck.

Christ, Henry... now you're trotting out a straw man? What's next, appeal to pity? The only anti-intellectualism I'm seeing here is yours, which consist primarily of you sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "I am not list-en-ing to you be-cause I am al-ways right." Get the @!$%# over yourself, already.

You can either address the arguments I've made, or not. But don't think you're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes by pretending that I'm anti-intellectual, a racist, or any of the other stunts you've attempted to date.

I sure hope you don't make a living out of anything that requires reasoned argument. You seem exceptionally bad at it.

Did I write 10.26? No, I didn't. Believe those on your side if you like, but that's what you Republicans tend to do. Ignore facts and support your gut feeling and loyalty.

Iarnuocon, take a logic class.

Iarnuocon, take a logic class. @!$%# off, Henry.

Iarnuocon I hate but have to say this you are becoming well rehearsed at abusing people especially on the gun issue who take a different point of view to you. We are attempting to argue for changes that save lives you are attempting to say that measure that reduce the prevalence of guns wont. Lets just argue on those points and not get into personal abuse in breach of COH.

I hate but have to say this you are becoming well rehearsed at abusing people especially on the gun issue who take a different point of view to you. I give people back what they give out. Henry wants to be abusive and insulting to people, and so this is what he merits. Calling people racist, @!$%#es, suggesting that they are perpetually frightened, immoral, barbaric, et cetera draws not one single comment from you. It suggests where your sympathies lie, and what you're willing to overlook in the service of your ideology. But for me, attempting to skirt the CoH by left-handed insults is recognized for what it is, and I'm not afraid to call it that, or to give back to the person exactly what they are attempting to dish out.

Is that abuse? In your book, yes. In mine, no. But your book ignores "breaches of CoH" when its convenient.

We are attempting to argue for changes that save lives you are attempting to say that measure that reduce the prevalence of guns wont. Lets just argue on those points I've already learned from this thread that you don't do facts, logic, reason, et cetera. Thee points have already all been argued between us, and there's very little, if anything, that you're going to say which is changed from that previous argument; hence it's not particularly fruitful to hop on that ride and take a spin with you.

But as for Henry's "Arguments", those have all already been addressed. He doesn't want to deal with the rebuttals, and wants to pretend that my logic is flawed without showing how? That's his prerogative. From where I sit, it looks like he's just out of intellectual ammo.

Bad arguments are bad arguments. I do not give them any respect, nor will I.

iarnuocon. So if bad arguments are bad arguments that is where they should rest and no! No matter what should you or anyone else need to resort to this

@!$%# off, Henry.

language.

Whatever. When I want your advice, I'll ask for it.

That would be the gun owned by a free person in a free society. Our Constitution guarantees that our society is free and only by not allowing an Administration to disarm us will we remain free.

. Our Constitution guarantees that our society is free

Is it?

and only by not allowing an Administration to disarm us will we remain free.

Do you believe that the threats to freedom are the kind of things you can shoot?

Do you believe that the threats to freedom are the kind of things you can shoot?

Without question. What sort of threats do you envision that cannot be shot? Threats to our freedom come in only two varieties: foreign invaders or domestic despots. Either can readily be shot.

Threats to our safety, on the other hand, are a bit more varied, and some of them would present problems.

Threats to our freedom come in only two varieties: foreign invaders or domestic despots.

Ideas are more dangerous than despots will ever be, particularly in the modern world. Partisanship is the greatest danger facing America today. Go shoot it.

Oh no, drugs have infested our schoolyards. Shooting the dealers won't work, because the desire is still there. Better shoot addiction - it is a direct threat to freedom.

Oh no, it's the ATF, come to take your guns. Better get the youngun's into the compound and hope it doesn't mysteriously catch on fire.

Oh no, the military is being sent to take down your militia. Good thing your friends all have guns too! Pity they lack any sort of military training, discipline, support structure, chain of supply, reinforcements, and ability to mount operations on a nationwide level. Either way, Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo will solve ALL our problems.

LOL, you're ideas are childish, naive, and moronic.

Go protest the drug dealers. Go lobby the guns out of everyone's hands. Maybe you can get a petition signed that will keep us all safe.

When you leave it to your precious Nanny state to protect you, you get your beloved Patriot Act. That could have been stopped with a gun.

When you leave it to your precious Nanny state to protect you, you get your beloved Patriot Act. That could have been stopped with a gun.

I think you misunderstand OZ.

He/She might agree with me that elevating our consciousness (individually and collectively) is the way to improve things, not guns or legislation.

Go protest the drug dealers.

Or decriminalize/legalize and regulate drugs, enabling the free market to make the illicit activities of drug dealers FAR less profitable. Worked with alcohol when they repealed prohibition - see any bootleggers around lately?

You do not meet force with force, Mars. You fix the problems, not the symptoms.

You do not meet force with force, Mars. You fix the problems, not the symptoms.

So we should decriminalize/legalize murder, assault, rape, etc etc so that nobody will "profit" from being armed? Or are you saying we should legalize/decriminalize all guns so that criminals can't profit from selling illegal guns?

What's your solution to stop violence?

What's your solution to stop violence?

Stop the desire for violence.

But guns aren't about violence. They are about the illusion of safety and a false sense of empowerment.

Stop the desire for violence.

By what means? You seem to have the answers, let's hear them.

But guns aren't about violence. They are about the illusion of safety and a false sense of empowerment.

They are about projecting bullets at very high velocities into a number of different things for a number of different uses. They are basically glorified nail guns. Do you also insult the owners of nail guns?

By what means? You seem to have the answers, let's hear them.

I don't even think it's possible, but if it was, it's the providence of the individual to rise above the primitive desire for violence and join the grown-ups at the big-boy table.

Do you also insult the owners of nail guns?

If they feel empowered by having the nailgun or believe it will protect them, then yes. I'll insult them ALL DAY LONG.

And I'm not insulting gun owners. Everyone has psychological crutches.

Mars, the argument (and I happen to agree with it) is that decriminalizing drugs would eliminate the vast majority of murders committed with firearms. Although I'm not sure what impact that would have on gun grabbers, if the murder rate dropped to a rate similar to England's, without a blanket ban on guns. My inclination is to believe that they'd simply ignore the fact and continue to claim that "guns are bad."

And I'm not insulting gun owners. Everyone has psychological crutches.

Like your fear of guns and the need you feel to attempt moral superiority over people who own them?

My inclination is to believe that they'd simply ignore the fact and continue to claim that "guns are bad."

Of course they would. Gun control is a foolish proposition. There will always be a segment of the population who value personal gun ownership more than social order.

Like your fear of guns and the need you feel to attempt moral superiority over people who own them?

I don't see how that'd be a psychological crutch even if it were true, Mars. You should stick to "yo mamma" unless you understand the concepts being employed.

I don't see how that'd be a psychological crutch

Well, blame your lack of education and/or intelligence.

The suicide rate doesn't harm others. If I kill myself, that doesn't hurt you - other than the loss to humanity of my amazing thought processes... but that aside. The suicide rate in Japan is roughly double than of the US. The gun murder deaths in the US are 93 times that in Japan.

2:93 is a bit unbalanced.

HenryVII-thanks I love to learn.

The most people who think like you (not necessarily including you) have supported the Neo-con moment political and have been complicit in the losses of freedom we are experiencing. why support the 2nd amendment if you are not willing to stop supporting those who want to finish off the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 10th amendments?

The loss of those other freedoms aren't necessarily directly felt by the people in support of the 2nd Amendment. People, even freedom loving Americans, have different tolerances for compromising liberties. Some draw the line at free speech, others at habeas corpus, and some put it on the 2nd Amendment.

Also, cynically speaking, think of who is in power. If you were a Neo-con, would you be afraid that 'commie liburals' are being deprived of their rights? It takes a strong individual to be concerned when the rights of other people are being infringed when it has seemingly no personal harm. Not everyone is that strong.

I doubt that "most" is accurate, but BMS certainly makes a valid point about some, and those people are just as complicit as the thugs in DC. Republican or Democrat is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There are two types of politicians: pro-rights and anti-rights. Pro-rights candidates support ALL the rights listed in the Constitution. Anti-rights candidates believe some or all rights need to be restricted or curtailed in some fashion. I could count on one hand the number of pro-rights officials currently serving in Congress, the oval office or the SC. That one sad fact reflects very poorly upon all Americans.

There is no god. As such, it seems you have no rights.

The right to own a gun are GOD GIVEN ??

pull another one of those rabbits outa that hat of yours...

There were guns in the garden of Eden? Moses walked off the mountain with two tablets and guns? Jesus gave guns to his disciples before he died on the cross? god gave Mohamed a gun after he gave him the Holy Koran?

Guns are not god given.

I can quote many more times these types of things: TRAGIC incidents where kids blew their own heads off by playing with a loaded gun in the house. Or two spouses who have a drinking fight and one kills the other. As opposed to the 'night burglar scenario' this kind of stuff is MUCH more likely. It happens all the time. Right. So as a result, all citizens should be treated as children who need the state to protect them from their bad decisions.

Again, you can spin this however you like, but it's becoming clear that those who oppose gun ownership approach the question from the point of view that the people derive their rights from the government, and those who defend the 2nd Amendment from the point of view that the people are inherently responsible for themselves.

It IS tragic when a kid accidentally kills himself or a friend because said kid's parents are so titanically ignorant that they don't observe basic gun safety or common sense. But frankly, I find it pretty funny that people who bring this up seem very concerned about the presence of a gun, but completely and blithely complacent about the real underlying problem-- @!$%#ty parents.

Yeah, the gun loaded itself, crawled out to where the kid could find it, and then convinced the kid through its powers of rhetoric that he should pull the trigger. Obviously we need to address these sly guns.

Or maybe we should just encourage people who own guns to know something about them, and to use common sense in how they handle them. And when they fail, as some of them will, punish them appropriately for recklessly endangering others.

iarnuocon: I am not against gun ownership. I am against keeping loaded guns under your mattress in the unlikely event of a burglary, etc. In fact, I own a Smith and Wesson model 4506, a nice 22 caliber revolver, and the one that puts deer meat in the freezer, the Win 30/30. Surprised?

But, I don't keep any bullets around at home. I have the bat for burglars. I would rather take this chance than the much GREATER possibility of an accident. The only exception to this (IMHO) is when a single woman lives alone. In these cases, since women are (sorry, girls) somewhat physically less able (sometimes) to beat off a big male attacker, then I think for the woman to keep one around in the nightstand might be okay.

I feel confident enough as a man that in the unlikely event of a night burglar, the bat would be enough.

I am not against gun ownership. I am against keeping loaded guns under your mattress in the unlikely event of a burglary, etc. In fact, I own a Smith and Wesson model 4506, a nice 22 caliber revolver, and the one that puts deer meat in the freezer, the Win 30/30. Surprised? Pleasantly, actually. And I completely agree about not keeping loaded guns under the mattress.

My wife and I don't have kids. I own a Mosin-Nagant M44, a Remington .22 rifle, a Glock Model 19, a CZ 82 and a CZ 52. None of them are loaded, although I do store loaded magazines near where the pistols themselves are kept. When visitors with kids come over, the guns get locked up beforehand. My wife knows where the guns are, where the ammo is, and has had some firearms training.

It's common sense, in my opinion. Don't do anything stupid, always assume firearms are loaded, even when you "know" that they're not, and keep them out of the hands of people whom you are not absolutely sure are capable of handling them safely. That's it.

Parents who leave a loaded gun in the nightstand when they have kids around are guilty of reckless endangerment, and should be treated accordingly, IMO.

I feel confident enough as a man that in the unlikely event of a night burglar, the bat would be enough. My point has always been that that's a choice. In your case that's a considered choice. What I have always argued is that it shouldn't be forced on you as the only resort. Like fire insurance, most guns never have to be used. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be available if necessary.

Bobbie--why would you keep a pea-shooter (.22 long rifle) around your home where any burglar could steal it?? S&W 22 isn't worth alot in defending yourself. Is the Win 30-30 a lever gun?? Also a poor defense weapon. Bat is the least useful-you have to be close to use it. And do you have a plan of what to do when the burglar wakes you out of a deep sleep and you need to get to the bat?? Is it handy to your bed??

What happens should the first notice that a burglar is entering your house is the smashing of your front door...do you put shoes on so any glass won't disable you or do you grab the phone and dial 911?? Grab your bat and run off to face the threat or lock your bedroom door and wait for the police?? Stand with your bat near the door so to get a good strike at the burglar or retreat behind the bed or into a closet/bathroom to wait for the police?? If you grab the bat and charge off to attack the burglar, do you turn on lights (you'll be blinded, but perp may be also) or grab a flashlight (leaving only one hand to swing the bat)?? With the sound of a burglar smashing through your door, a massive adrenalin dump will result in your fine motor skills being greatly diminished. Your ability to hold both bat and flashlight will become difficult.

New model pistols-typically 9mm, 40 cal or 45 cal-are coming with a rail below the barrel on which a very bright light can be installed. If you choose to acquire one, please be sure you are very, very familiar with how it operates. And practice with it. Only by being familiar with it and using it frequently can you be sure that fine motor skills will work well enough to operate it properly and when needed.

RETLAW: Your comments are what make people forget Charlton Heston starred in 'The Ten Commandments', and think of him only as a spokesman for the NRA.

The anti-gun lobby loves you, I would think.

Bobbie--I'm convinced that you love me then.

My plan: since I am the protector of my loved ones, nobody is coming up the stairs to my bedroom. They can take what they want downstairs, but after I call the police, my wife and I will wait upstairs and nobody is going to come up. We'll wait for the police. Nobody will come up because I have my gun. I don't intend to go down, I'll wait for the police. Should an intruder try to come up the stairs, I'll feel very justified in stopping him. And I do know how to use my gun, I practice with it weekly. Oh, and by the way it isn't a .22 it is a .45.

Again, I ask, what is your plan??

since women are (sorry, girls) somewhat physically less able (sometimes) to beat off a big male attacker, then I think for the woman to keep one around in the nightstand might be okay.

I won't worry my pretty little head about the comment, so long as I've got my piece under the pillow.