Private firearm ownership
Posted on: November 19, 2009 - 12:35pm
Offline
Private firearm ownership
What are your thoughts on private ownership of firearms?
I'll start. I support the private ownership of firearms because:
1) They are the most effective, technologically advanced, usable, readily available means for self-defense. They serve to even the odds for those who are outnumbered, elderly, and/or unskilled in fighting relative to the assailant.
2) I think that it is creepy to advocate a state monopoly on the possession of firearms, for obvious historical reasons.
3) Targetshooting is fun, and people have as much of a right to have fun with this hobby as they do with any other hobby that does not adversely impact anyone.
- Login to post comments
68 fatal or serious injuries caused by guns in the U.K. For the year.
Pfft. They don't hold a candle to the states.
Most of their offenses were for PROPERTY damage. From AIR weapons.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I've only ever shot a bb gun. Oh, wait, and also a lazer gun during a game of lazer tag. That is fun.
....and the gun that comes with Duck Hunt for Nintendo.....
Stupid duck hunt. It never hit them on my screen unless I turned the brightness up, and then i hit ducks no matter where i pointed it as long as it was somewhere at the bright glowing rectangle.
And then there was this guy:
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I think I read that the UK was suffering from an alarming rise in murder from the use knives. Have you heard of this ? Just from perusing some of the online news sources from the UK it seems that domestic tranquility is experiencing a significant ebb.
The reason I thought of Columbia was because, off the top of my head, many of the South American nations severely limit access to firearms ( to prevent political insurgency ) yet Columbia, aka the kidnapping capital of the world, was one of the few countries in the world where homicides far exceed the rate of suicide. And Switzerland came to mind for their extremely abundant level of civilian firearms ownership, relative lack of comparable gun crime and minor level of gun-control legislation. Got to get ready for work, later !
Switzerland from wiki:
Police statistics for the year 2006[13] records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordinance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms.[14]
I can't read the sources, they aren't in English. Suicides again make an appearance though as the leading use of guns by their owners.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Target shooting and distributing weapons for national defense is the lead use of those guns. The fact that they are a very effective method of suicide is just a fringe benefit.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
Just make sure not to miss. I've seen what happens when you miss... > >
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yep, M134. Adorable!
FAO ClockCat : More Guns Less Crime _ John Lott
Grab a copy of this book from your local Library and enjoy the evidence based argument for responsible gun ownership in greater numbers.
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.
Best part of the book for me was the fact that Lott began his research as hard-line anti-gun.
Yay!
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
That reminds me of an interesting factoid, did you know that at one point the suicide rate for American police officers was twice the rate of the general population ? Apparently officers frequently resolve their stress issues by killing themselves. I'm not anti-police ( I'm pro gun
) http://tearsofacop.com
... because they look more sane attempting to justify their shotgun ownership, by making the government seem like the big bad guy whos ready to pounce on a defenseless populous... instead of their real reason, Zombie Plan Preperation!
What Would Kharn Do?
... And yet it still exists in reality...
What Would Kharn Do?
Well if the shit ever does hit the fan I'll have my guns, and I'm good with that. I enjoy guns, I have fun firing them, and yes, they make my home safe. All of you gun haters can hate them all you want, but you're not taking mine from me.
... could i at least TRY? it might make for a fun weekend! ^_^
What Would Kharn Do?
cling tighter! TIGHTER!
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I don't think anyone has even suggested they become illegal or hinted at taking your gun away
I maybe wrong 
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You could, though your efforts will be futile...hehe
Eric Holder has, as have many other anti gun advocates. I wasn't speaking to anyone here directly, it was a general statement.
Deja Vu.
It reminds me of when I first entered into the world of firearms ownership and the necessity of political activism. I was very active on the grass roots level. When ever I would attend one of the major gun shows I would frequently man the booth while representing the gun rights organization that I was a member of ( you've never heard of them, and they have since disbanded ) . I would go over to the gun dealers tables and invite them to attend one of our pro-second amendment rallies and they would uniformly dismiss us in a rather curt manner. These same men were the ones making the lame excuse that "if they ever try and take my guns there'll be hell to pay, blah, blah..."
I lost all respect for those ass holes. They talked a tough fight but really, ..which is easier, to engage in the political process and protect your gun rights without having to shed blood...or to take up armed resistance and go through all the "inconvenience" of actually engaging in urban warfare ? If they can't be bothered to show up at a political rally, or make speeches, or debate the opposition ( ie, Hand Gun Control, local Police Chief ) at the local TV station why should I believe they had the balls to risk their very lives ?
I used to think about it a lot. It's like, "...well, Mr. Super Patriot gun dealer, have you thought about how your life will change after you've taken your first shot at your friendly ATF agent / FBI agent / National Guard soldier, etc ? Do you think you can go play militia man on the weekend and go back to work on Monday and brag about it to your friends at the water cooler ? If you even attempt to take a government agent's life you are a wanted man. Period. They won't forget about you. You will become the government's target as much as they are yours.
Let's see, being a fugitive from justice means you can't go out in public to buy food without taking extreme measures to maintain anonymity. If you are hanging out in a safe house and you suddenly experience a burst appendix or any other major medical emergency you can't go to the hospital because you will be arrested. How will you replenish your personal / logistical needs if you can no longer be openly employed......."
Anyway Big E I am not trying to impugn your willingness to back up your claims. For all I know you have already worked out the details in advance, if you have then I salute you.
Besides, I was just having a momentary flashback.
I just went back and re-read this. I concur.
That minor shit wouldn't bother Chuck Norris.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
Minor details.... who cares about food I gots my guns. Who cares about medicine I gots my guns I'll just shoot someone and take there kidnies. Who cares about having any sort of comfort in their lives I gots my guns. While I guess the idea of a lone man going against the law for high ideals of freedom and fighting for his rights may be apealing, I'm willing to guess that in practice it would be far less enjoyable. Then again why not start a revolution nothing better than a good civil war
But of couse none of this could happen as to many support the right to bear arms
on a side note... viva la revolution!
Who said you need to be in shape to fight
I joke but hey if it is something you believe in then I say all the power to you Just don't point that thing in my direction. Its just not some thing I would fight for.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I'll tell you how important guns are in our famiy. My son (now 23) earned all his pocket money shooting sporting clays. While still in high school he was state champion in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and runner up in Tennessee. (Could only hold title in Alabama but could keep money in other states.) That was his "summer job" every year, earning him thousands. (Much more than any minimum wage summer job.)
He went to college on a shooting scholarship! Lindenwood is a private university in Missouri. He found out about them online and went up for a visit, shot against the coach and secured his scholarship. Lindenwood won the national championship six years in a row against Yale, Duke, Texas A&M and other colleges all over the country. (May still be undefeated. I haven't kept up lately.)
My son made the All American Team two years, which is the top 5 shooters in the NATION. And they still got to keep all prize money they won! Only college sport I have ever known of that did not require any kind of "amateur status."
He has over 50 first place prize trophies, cups, plates, statues...and some other great prizes like guns, art, etc.
Since graduating last May, his knowledge of guns and outdoor skills have landed him jobs as a hunting guide in Colorado where he earned tips of as much as $1000. (He also worked as a hunting guide in Montana right out of high school.)
My son has SCORES of guns. He has met so many fantastic people and traveled extensively. He has friends in every state and friends from every profession to vouch for him or assist him in so many ways toward meeting his life goals. All because of GUNS.
He is now accepted to Auburn University and will begin either a masters program or vet school.
I wouldn't take anything for the times we have spent at the shooting range and dove hunting together. He will always be a shooter! And what could possibly be wrong with that?!
Vicki
Well, at this point, to make things interesting, I'm going to call the gun a cowards weapon. Before ex-military and gun advocates jump on me, I'll also say I'm against banning them. To clarify the seeming discrepancy:
If your opponent has guns, then using them in return levels the playing field. You might be a coward by doing so, but at least you're a smart coward who cares more about victory and survival than cowardice. This covers cops, military folks, and farmers.
Hunters too, but to a far lesser degree. If a hunter wants to impress me with a kill, he or she'd need to use a bow or spear. Things that take skill. Even traps require more skill than guns unless you're a farmer protecting livestock (where the animals literally come to you).
Killing ducks with AK's and deer with high powered rifles is like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no challenge and no risk.
If you can't get close to the kill, risking injury or total loss, and look at your opponents eyes as they die, you are a coward.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
ummm nothing I guess. Not that that story paints a well rounded picture. on the other extreme end is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buell_Elementary_School_shooting
now what could possibly be wrong with that?!
point is there are 2 sides to every coin.... not that I think guns should be banned
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
For clarity... are you calling cops cowards because they use guns?!
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Yes. Though their use of guns can be justified through defence of themselves and others, they are still cowards compared to cops who don't carry firearms.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
May I suggest that you never become a cop... or if you do become a coward.
Let me tell you why you are wrong... cops that don't carry guns are traffic police..... They don't even have the balls to be real policemen.. even some trafic police them carry guns. No real cop at least where I live doesn't carry a gun. He would be useless. So you cannot compare police who carry guns with those that don't. As all carry guns unless they are piontless and only give parking violations.
unarmed security guards though yeah they have balls... at least some.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
But Vastet in modern warfare the goal is not to test your manhood, the goal is to destroy your enemy and his resources. What does chivalry have to do with flying a strategic bomber over a target and carpet bombing it ? What does being macho have to do with standing beside a howitzer and lobbing 155mm projectiles over the horizon to destroy an enemy that is beyond your line of site ? How about land mines and booby traps ? Are cruise missles useless because it prevents your enemy from plunging a dagger in your throat ?
I don't know about you, but if I possess a serious advantage over a hostile opponent I'm going to use it. No disrespect but in an a real war scenario your particular sense of manhood would most likely have you stretched out in rigor mortis and covered in maggots within a very short time. Just sayin' bro.
This reminds me of some of the things I've read about ancient Rome and their war against Germanic tribes. For the most part the hyper-masculine barbarians of the time never wore body armor, they lacked any cohesive military strategy and, like you, they put special emphasis upon killing their enemy in the most intimate fashion. In fact they despised the use of the bow because they considered it to be less than manly to kill your opponent from a distance.
They suffered badly in defense of this macho mentality. In fact, it just made the Romans job that much easier.
PS, the German tribes eventually got over their aversion to using weapons that killed from a distance and began to adopt their enemies strategy. They began using captured Roman weapons, including body armor because they finally realized that their prior attitudes simply meant that they would likely enjoy an early death, chivalry be damned.
Remember the days when a mans honor was worth more than his life?
... when a mans honor could cost not only his, but his sons, and his families lives?
While i may not agree with Vasets opinion of firearm cowardice, i do understand the concept of honor, chivalry, and a fair fight.
I, myself, would never intentionally inflict harm upon a mans genitals... to win a fight, or even to save my own life.
Just as i would never kill his son, to prevent future revenge (although i may kill the child for other reasons... )
Some people just care about their own personal code, more than their own lives... which is fine, of course, natural selection makes sure that they are few and far between
What Would Kharn Do?
If you are looking for a challenge to your manhood in the era of modern warfare then perhaps just staying alive would be an acomplishment worthy of notice. The odds are stacked against you ( by design ) and avoiding an early death in such an environment could never be ensured by luck alone. Skill and training in the accomplishment of your military objectives while your enemy is actively trying to kill you is certainly worthy of respect and honor.
PS, soldiers who kill from a distance are frequently killed at a distance. It still takes balls because the risk of death is not diminished based upon remoteness from one's enemy. Welcome to the modern world.
*shrug*
As long as i have a 5:1 Ratio... im a happy camper
And you are guaranteed a medal upon death... tough call
What Would Kharn Do?
....now you're catching on !
Kills to Death ratio, not Allies to Enemies
What do you take me for? a coward? Ahaha
What Would Kharn Do?
Hmmmm, whatever floats your boat ( or sinks it if that becomes necessary )
People are misconstruing my post. But I expected that. The world is full of pussies who don't have the balls to settle a fight one on one. They have to be able to kill someone 2 clicks away with the push of a button or the pull of a trigger. All brains, no balls. I won't respect it though. I don't have to.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Britain is full of traffic police.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I suppose that you are right. In the sense that most people would much rather hit a button or pull a trigger rather than engage in a fair fight. I just want a utilitarian form of defense. I don't care about "balls" but I want to use my brains to figure out an effective and low-risk approach to defense. Rather than try to prove my manhood or the size of my balls, I'de rather just shoot an intruder. For that matter I would rather not fight or shoot anyone. Only in extreme senarios would I even be shooting. In one of those senarios I wouldn't care about proving manhood in the slightest and would only care about a utilitarian method of getting out of that situation. I think that is a very sensable approach. If that makes me a coward, then I'm a proud coward.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
It has nothing to do with manhood or macho, it's called a fair fight, where you actually have an opportunity to defend yourself. There is no defence against a firearm, short of another firearm. Guns are for pussies and murderers.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
By your rationale we shouldn't be using computers because it's intellectually lazy.
Technology is awesome, I love it. My Glock is part of my tech collection. If you think shooting someone is cowardly then you've obviously not had to take a life in a moment of strass.
I hope you never do but I seriously think you have game playing and sport confused with survival.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
"By your rationale we shouldn't be using computers because it's intellectually lazy."
Ridiculous. And quite the opposite too.
"Technology is awesome, I love it."
Me too.
"My Glock is part of my tech collection."
*SNORT*
"If you think shooting someone is cowardly then you've obviously not had to take a life in a moment of strass."
I don't have to kill someone to know a gun is a cowards weapon. The closest I ever came to killing someone was putting my knife to the throat of someone pointing a gun at my friend. I'd have had no problem in making the cut if the coward didn't back down like all bullies and cowards do when faced with a credible threat.
"I hope you never do but I seriously think you have game playing and sport confused with survival."
Not at all.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.