Armed America

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions? For that to happen, you would have to have your gun with you, loaded, safety off, at the ready, and anticipate the threat, be able to correctly determine if the threat is real (don't want to make a victim out of an innocent person), be able to aim and hit a target, and have the willingness to kill and face the consequences of killing - all before the aggressor does it to you first.

No.

And there is likely at least one civilian defensive firearms training course in your very own home town. There's one just up the road in the next town from mine. They are there to teach you all of that, from beginning to end. The training is equivalent to what the average policeman receives in his first couple of years on the force.

Don't argue with us, Spexx. Your ignorance is absolute, and indeed it discredits your cause to have so complete a vacuity where your information ought to be, while our knowledge is profound and detailed. You lose, and forever. Those who agree with you lose, not only their fortunes, but their lives along with their sacred honor -- because their igorance is absolute, and their ability to take care of severe problems is nil.

Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas is an essay that may be instructive. Take particular note of the paragraph next to the picture of the cold cuts sandwich on white bread, and the remark to the effect of only the ones who survive have the luxury of worrying about the next day, which I think answers Spexx's fretting about having to live with having killed someone. He doesn't want to, but we've decided we can better live with this than with being dead, about as obvious a no-brainer as I've ever heard of.

[Jordan]

The factof the matter is that firearms are here to stay. There is no way of hunting down each and every criminal and taking away their weapons. Do you truly believe that our law enforcement is capable of rounding up every gun that every criminal currently has, and then keeping new ones from being smuggled in? If that were the case then no country would have a drug problem either.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating the use of firearms. As far as I'm concerned, they serve no purpose beyond killing. I'm a gun RIGHTS advocate, I believe that you have the right to defend what is yours within reason. If someone breaks into my apt and goes after me, my girlfriends, or Kait, we should have the right and ability to protect ourselves.

[Spexxvet]

I wonder how many American thought, in 1860, that slavery could be eliminated?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Isn't it a fantasy-land scenario that you'll have a gun and be able to use it to stop personal injury or loss of posessions?

There have already been several firsthand accounts of that exact thing here. How many do you need?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There have already been several firsthand accounts of that exact thing here. How many do you need?

How many do you need to justify all the shooting deaths? Philadelphia averaged more than a shooting death a day last year. How many lives does it take to justify foiling the theft attempts of Mrnoodle's sound equipment, Kitsune's car, and Jordan's generator?

[Jordan]

I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.

Tell me, do you ever gamble? That's what criminals do, they know that they run the risk of getting shot and/or going to jail for doing something illegal... then they go out and commit the crime anyways. They willfully break the law, and the police can't be everywhere at once. Now you're saying we eliminate half of their risks? I just don't think so. Why should I work my butt off for a generator I may only use ever once 2-3yrs only to have a crook waltz off with it?

Not far from where I grew up they fire off guns for a birthday, Independence Day, New Years, sporting events and occasionally at one another. Are you saying that I should give up my defensive tools and allow others to prowl the streets with their firearms at the ready? Nopers, not gonna happen.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Jordan

...
Tell me, do you ever gamble?

I don't gamble with my life or my family's life. I think owning a gun is taking a gamble. Will a child get hold of it? Will there be an accidental discharge that kills someone? Will I misjudge a situation, and kill an innocent person? Will my brandishing a gun cause someone to kill me before I can kill them?

Originally Posted by Jordan

... Now you're saying we eliminate half of their risks?

No. My position is about handguns. Can you protect yourself and your family with a rifle or shotgun?

Originally Posted by Jordan

... Why should I work my butt off for a generator I may only use ever once 2-3yrs only to have a crook waltz off with it?

Would you have killed someone - taken a life - over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years?

Originally Posted by Jordan

... Are you saying that I should give up my defensive tools

No. There are plenty of defensive tools. Motion lights, alarms, tasers, bullet-proof vests, and all kinds of behavior. Most of them can't be used to commit crimes or hurt others.

Originally Posted by Jordan

... and allow others to prowl the streets with their firearms at the ready? ...

No. I disagree that handguns would be around long, if it's handled properly. Just by enforcing or strengthening current laws, for instance a mandatory life sentence for using a handgun to commit a crime or for irresponsible use of a handgun, those who misuse handguns will be out of circulation pretty quickly. If they switch to rifles, they'll be more identifiable. I know there will be exceptions to these rules, but guns will go away the same way cigarette smoking is going away.

Listen, you can pack a piece, and protect your family while they are with you. Other gun owners may not be as responsible as you. If your child's classmate gets a hold of his father's gun, brings it to school and shoots your child, the gun in your pocket didn't help. If someone breaks into a house and steals guns, and shoots you pre-emptively while they're stealing your generator, your gun didn't help. If you get raped in a parking lot because your gun is locked in your gun safe at home, it didn't help. But, because you reserve the right to own a gun, others have guns, and can use them to commit crimes, and have lethal accidents. Is it worth it?

[Jordan]

The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass. As I've already stated, I only have the two guns and they're kept in plain sight. I would notice right away if either were missing. Also, an innocent person would not be prowling my property and no one should never EVER pull out their gun unless you KNOW you may need it.

I can easily defend myself and property with a shotgun, the rifle concept is rather foreign to me.

I never shot AT them, merely discharged into the ground. That generator also supplied power to an eightyish great grandmother next door. This is the same woman who feeds the neighborhood cats went shopping for me and made me chicken soup while i was ill last week. Thanks to the cold front that came after the storm, the only things she had drawing on my generator were her refrigerator and a ceiling fan. IF there had been no cold front, and IF I had not scared away the thieves, she would have had serious issues with the heat and humidity in the aftermath of the storm.

Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".

Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.

Abolishing firearm sales in the United States will only mean that they will be smuggled in from Mexico, Puerto Rico or Canada by criminals. That means that law abiding citizens such as myself and many others would be at even MORE of a disadvantage against them.

Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.

Let's abolish cars as well.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Would you have killed someone - taken a life - over a generator that you use once every 2-3 years?

Absolutely, scum that prey on people trying to survive in the wake of a natural disaster deserve to die. Shooting looters has always been Standard Procedure for all levels of government and should be followed by the citizens.

Your concern for this lower than whale shit, predator that causes untold suffering and possibly death to people in trouble, is foolish. You remind of the guy that went, unarmed, to live with the bears because they were just misunderstood creatures doing their thing. He was 100% right. Their thing was to eat him.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Absolutely, scum that prey on people trying to survive in the wake of a natural disaster deserve to die. Shooting looters has always been Standard Procedure for all levels of government and should be followed by the citizens.

So you would and could take someone's life for material things?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Your concern for this lower than whale shit, predator that causes untold suffering and possibly death to people in trouble, is foolish.....

You've got me wrong. I was asking to find information, it was not a rhetorical quetsion, though I'd rather see a non-violent resolution to the conflict. Jordan resolved the conflict without violence. Well done. And I'm glad they were caught and punished.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Jordan

The only way that any child could get a hold of my firearms is to either take the key from my keychain or else break the glass.

But not every gun owner is as responsible or thorough as you are.

Originally Posted by Jordan

...
Motion lights? Do they have raccoons or opossums where you live? Bullet proof vests don't do anything to defend the home. Tasers require you to get too close and when you're talking two or three to one odds, I'd like to keep things as much in my favor as possible. FYI: Tasers can and are used to commit crimes, they're simply not as "popular".

Or as "lethal". My point is that there are plenty of things you can do to protect yourself and your home besides having a handgun at the ready to kill someone. Isn't that true?

Originally Posted by Jordan

Do you truly think that by signing a new amendment into place abolishing firearms, the criminals will simply cease to carry them in the next ten to twenty years? Do you know the laws they have against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse...? Yet these crimes continue, why is that? Possibly because in order to first be a criminal one must first make a conscious choice to break the law. If we have people that are willing to break the law in order to commit all of the above and NONE of the aforementioned crimes require firearms in order to commit them, then it stands to reason that none of these crimes would be prevented by abolishing firearms.

So you're saying that laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse don't stop those crimes, so laws against gun posession won't stop gun crimes, is that right? By that logic, we should revoke the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse - after all, they're not stopping those crimes. Let's just not even attempt to stop those crimes, the way you want to not even attempt to stop gun posession. I do not support legislating the abolishment of firearms, I support voluntarily giving them up.

Originally Posted by Jordan

Oh yeah, your argument that others should loose their property for someone elses negligence holds no water. Should you lose your car because someone went out and purpousfully ran over their mother-in-law? They aimed their weapon, pressed the "trigger" and took someone's life. I reserve the right to own a gun and a car, others have guns and cars, both are used to commit crimes and both are involved in lethal accidents.

Let's abolish cars as well.

Actually, you lose "property" for other people's negligence all the time. Car insurance rates increase in proportion to the likelihood of your "group" getting into an accident. Same with health insurance. Your buddy's doughnut eating is increasing the cost of your health insurance. Go figure.

When you reserve the right to own a gun, you reserve the right of others to own a gun... others who may use those guns for criminal activities or who allow children to have access to them.

I've heard the "(insert ludicrous object here) kill people, and nobody wants to outlaw them" argument before. I'm sure somebody's been "spooned" to death before, so let's outlaw spoons. Bottom line: Handguns were made for killing people. (Quick, someone jump in and say how they are used for sport or protection from dangerous animals.) They were made for killing people. The world would be a better place without them.

[Jordan]

So I should voluntarily pay the price for someone elses negligence? Now we're back at the "let's all give up our car" theory, around and around we go lass.

You show me something that's as accurate as a handgun at 20 feet with 100% of the same stopping power and, (after a bit of judicial research), I'll be the first one applauding.

I never said the laws against rape, drug possession, distribution, spousal abuse, child abuse etc don't help to prevent these crimes. What I did say was that none of these violent crimes require a gun and that those who make a conscious choice to break the law would do so regardless of the time they must spend in jail. I never advocated eliminating those crimes from the dockets. By all means, let's increase the penalties on them.

But again I say, your argument holds no water. I reserve the right to drive and own a car, for dinner tonight we all had steak, potato wedges and spinach with a desert of lime sorbet. Does that mean that "Average Joe Citizen" will pay for our health care if we all come down with cholesterol induced heart failure? Incrementally speaking, sure, but somehow I doubt it. Yes, increments amassed can lead to much more; the same way many creeks may lead into a stream and several streams will form a river.
IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments. Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society. You're correct in saying that handguns were made for killing, but it's the person who dictates what the target is.

Again I say that I'd rather have it and never need it, than need it and not have it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So you would and could take someone's life for material things?

In the case of looters, absolutely.

No. There are plenty of defensive tools. Motion lights, alarms, tasers, bullet-proof vests, and all kinds of behavior. Most of them can't be used to commit crimes or hurt others.

Then you'll be canceling your insurance, life and home owners, since you have all these defensive tools, right?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

In the case of looters, absolutely.

Just curious, have you ever killed anyone?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Then you'll be canceling your insurance, life and home owners, since you have all these defensive tools, right?

Who said I have all those things?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Jordan

You show me something that's as accurate as a handgun at 20 feet with 100% of the same stopping power and, (after a bit of judicial research), I'll be the first one applauding.

How about a shotgun, ma'am?

Originally Posted by Jordan

...
But again I say, your argument holds no water.
...IMO: That river never formed in any of your arguments. Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society. You're correct in saying that handguns were made for killing, but it's the person who dictates what the target is.
...

And your argument is held in a seive.
Regarding guns:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their guns via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"

Same logic:
Regarding drugs:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their drugs via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"

Regarding rape:
"Show me how we can prevent criminals from obtaining their penises via our Mexican/Canadian borders and I'll be the first to sign up for your Utopian Society"