Guns don't kill people ....

[Ibby]

One day, I plan to own a handgun and a rifle. maybe multiple. I'm not really into shotguns or "assault" weapons but could imagine owning an AK-47 or something.

I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.

But I don't feel like, anywhere in Vermont, I would need to.

*This statement not intended to be political in any way. Just personal.

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by Ibram

...
I would never use a weapon to defend myself...

Not even if a bunch of the locals were outside your door with torches and pitchforks?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.

I encourage anyone who is not legally prohibited from owning firearms to get one. But ... if you have no willingness to defend yourself, and feel no need to ... why would you buy a pistol? Yeah, target shooting is a heck of a lot of fun, but you can fulfill that particular need by throwing darts or getting a bow.

Oh, and Vermont is a safer state because of the no-paper carry laws and responsible gun ownership.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

Oh, and Vermont is a safer state because of the no-paper carry laws and responsible gun ownership.

Do you have any evidence of that?

[Lamplighter]

Vermont is hardly a model for other states to follow

Vermont State Law Summary
Last updated February 2, 2012

Vermont does not:

• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;
• Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;
• Require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license;
• Require the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks;
• Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;
• Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;
• Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”);
• Allow local governments to regulate firearms; or
• Require any permit or license for the carrying of concealed firearms.

In 2009, Vermont had the 16th lowest number of gun deaths per capita among the states.
Yet even this relatively low ranking means that, in that year, 60 people died
from firearm-related injuries in Vermont.

In addition, based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
Vermont had the 16th highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009–
meaning that crime guns originally sold in Vermont were recovered after being used in crimes
in other states at the 16th highest rate among the states.




VTdigger.org
Kate Robinson
3/27/12

Gun safety law is in limbo, despite recent teen suicides
by Kate Robinson
March 4, 2011

[dmg1969]

I fully agree with what wolf said. If you are not willing to take someone's life when yours is threatened, you should not have a gun for self defense. Hesitation will cause it to be taken from you and used against you.

The only problem with a knife or other "short" object for self defense is that you have to get get close enough to the threat that your weapon can be removed from you or they can hurt you with their weapon (knife, club, etc.).

If you are dead set (no pun) against (or unable to own) a gun, I would recommend a POLICE strength pepper spray in a cone fog. Fox Labs makes a good one that I keep by the bed. One blast of that and the person should be out of commission for a short time so you can escape and call the police. Also, a weapon with a little longer reach like a baseball bat or golf club. This is all assuming the other party does not have a gun. You know the joke about bringing a knife to a gunfight....

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Do you have any evidence of that?

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/bo...bo6686900.html

[Ibby]

I couldn't do it. Like, I have no business using a weapon to defend myself. Gun owners talk about how some mythical Übermensch of the Responsible Gun Owner is who they mean when they talk about gun owners... I am not that. I don't believe that I could make the hard choices, be the right responsible actor in a high-stakes, high-stress situation like that. If I can't talk my way out of it, well, I'm SOL... but if I picked up a weapon to be used for violence, I do not believe that I would be able to use it responsibly, and using it irresponsibly, even under emotional stress, i don't believe is forgivable, even if you didn't create the situation. I'm not necessarily saying that should be the law, but I don't think the use of violent force, even in self-defense, is justified if the force is applied irresponsibly.

[Griff]

I think that is a completely valid argument for a single person to make. If you have others in your household, sacrificing them to a principle you hold is less noble. I look at it like the nutters who don't seek medical help because Jesus is gonna cure them. Fine die of cancer, but don't let your children die to improve your relationship with the guy in the sky. Thankfully, I live in a "castle" state where in the unlikely event of a home invasion I can do whatever needs to be done, without having to read the mind of my assailant. If possible I'd avoid confrontation, but I'm not sacrificing myself or my children.

Strange correlation: We've seen the video of the kids with the rc car pushing the guys golf balls around. Being a golf hater, I thought it was hilarious if a little mean, but then the kid confronted the old man over a not unpredictable response. The home invader is an extreme version of that kid, crossing a psychological line with unpredictable results, because his victim is surprised and has no way of knowing his intent and maybe buried his wife yesterday.

[infinite monkey]

Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?

Griff: I suppose it would've also been funny had someone ran an RC around just as people in their bee-keeper costumes were getting ready to jab pointy things at each other in a time-honored and noble sport.

dmg: I guess I'll pull out a conservative-ish thought and say that you can't really define a 'liberal mind-set' because I would protect myself (a single person, no dog, no gun, but a big knife) if someone invaded my home. I'd kill the hell out of someone who was trying to take away my life and my freedom to be safe in my own home. Or die trying.

We liberals aren't all pushovers.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by wolf

But ... if you have no willingness to defend yourself, and feel no need to ... why would you buy a pistol?

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?

I really, really enjoy firing guns. Target shooting is just really fun! I doubt I would even hunt with it, I'm not really into killing animals either. It's... not the same as archery or darts.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I really, really enjoy firing guns. ... It's... not the same as archery or darts.

There are Civil War re-enactors clubs. There are Old West re-enactors/Cowboy Shooting clubs. There are WWII re-enactors clubs. Maybe it's time for someone to start a Community Watch re-enactors club. The club might even get corporate sponsorship to provide free hoodies!




(just kidding, I know you said target shooting)

[ZenGum]

I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.

I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.

I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.

I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.

I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.

Why couldn't you get a gun? You could still have a shot gun or a .22. Both would do the job if you needed a job done.

I am certain that if someone or something threatened my family and I had a gun within arms reach, I wouldn't think twice. (fortunately for any potential criminals I don't have a gun)

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Why couldn't you get a gun? You could still have a shot gun or a .22. Both would do the job if you needed a job done.

I am certain that if someone or something threatened my family and I had a gun within arms reach, I wouldn't think twice. (fortunately for any potential criminals I don't have a gun)

Why? Umm, the law, you know?

I haven't actually checked this out, just what I've picked up over the years, but I'm pretty sure you can only have a gun if:
you're a licensed security guard
you're a licensed professional shooter
you're a rural landowner who can demonstrate a need to control vermin
you're a member of a sporting target shooting club that shoots to olympic standard
you're a member of a licensed hunting organisation.

Home defense is explicitly NOT a lawful reason to have a gun.

I don't come anywhere near any of those categories.

I not really sure about any of that, it is just what I remember from the changes brought in after the Port Aurthur Massacre. (For teh Merkins, in 1996 a crazy guy went really really crazy and killed 35 people in Tasmania. After that we put a lot of restrictions on semi-automatics, pump-action shotguns, and magazine size. We also made it against the law for crazy people to have guns.)

We haven't been genocided yet.