Here is a reason to own a gun

[Ban Hammer 14,066]

I did not say that was the reason. I asked you why so few law abiding citizens in the most violent areas of US society own guns and why gang violence is seemingly never prevented by law abiding, gun owning citizens.

why don't you tell me, since you seem to know all there is to know about it.

and i'm still waiting for a citation on that earlier statement.

What does that have to do with what I said?

Context Charles, do try to stick with it

I am trying to suggest that the presence of large numbers of guns has resulted in a society that is more violent and less safe. That, BTW - is my take on the subject.

it has about as much to do with the topic as your statement. perhaps you should follow your own advice.

while i understand your point about numbers of firearms equaling more crime, i disagree with it.

The risk of harm where I currently live is so low, that the risk of harm I'd bring to my household and family by purchasing a gun is not worth it, IMO. I've though it over for awhile now. I'd still like to get one someday, but perhaps when my children are older.

entirely your choice, and a valid one. some are not so fortunate.

[slim 1,533]

Name one country where bounty hunting is legally permitted outside of the US? There are not many, if any.

There aren't many countries where folks are released from jail on bail. No bail, no bail enforcement agencies. Also keep in mind, and as others have pointed out, bounty hunters aren't law enforcement officers. They're employees of a private agency and are subject to the laws of each state. They have no more rights to invade someone's home than anyone else. When they mess up, it's on the news and for some reason, (and like most shootings) it wasn't presented as "these people messed up and possibly broke the law" it was "bounty hunters and guns are bad."

Yet again we see a case of people who aren't familiar with the way things work presenting them in a "this isn't safe and we should do away with it" manner. If they were to do away with bounty hunters, first of all many people would be sitting in jail longer (and costing us more tax dollars to care for them) and someone who's innocent of a crime could quite possibly not be released at all. Not many people have several thousand dollars cash laying around their house. Bail bondsmen are akin to insurance agents in that they provide "insurance" that the accused will return to court. They front large sums of cash to do so and the accused is required to sign a contract signing over many of their Rights to the bondsman. If the manner of enforcing that contract is rendered illegal than the contracts become unenforceable and the whole system dissipates.

What many other countries do is either keep the accused locked up indefinitely until their trial and sentencing or they send the police or military after the accused. Sometimes that ends up in the same shootout scenario as the one listed, but I guess that's OK because it's "the authorities" right? Or are you arguing that you'd rather have the accused sit in jail for several months before their trial? (Keep in mind you're paying for that.)

I love how we see the "nobody but America does this" argument here on VJ as proof that we shouldn't do it either. I highly recommend another tactic as this one's just not going to work. Regardless of how much you disagree with whatever we do, listing "how it works in the UK or Europe" or any other country is just not going to fly here. Remember, we already decided (twice) that we didn't like the UK's system and as for the rest of Europe and the world, for that matter, we've pretty much taken the stance that their system isn't going to work for us either. Thanks for trying though.

How are there 'friendly' muggers in the UK where everyone is unarmed apart from criminals? Btw, these were 'home invasions' and 'car invasions' not muggings.

You weren't robbed, you were burglarized. Also, you weren't the victim of a home invasion or a car invasion - once again you were burglarized. Your stuff got stolen by an unseen party while you weren't present. That's about the "safest" way to be victimized.

Had you been present, what would you have done?

I'm talking about the argument that has been aired here many times in the past that if I don't own a gun then it is a certainty that I will be victimized by violent criminals.

That is #######.

While that may be #######, can you not agree that if you are victimized, you'd fare better if you had a gun? I'm not a big believer in "you will be victimized at some point in your life" but I'm a huge believer in "if you happen to be victimized and you don't have a gun you'll probably wish you had."

Are the roads more or less safe with a few million extra cars on them?

Do you wear your seatbelt?

I don't post this to be a smartass, just that you're not likely to get into a car accident every time you drive. Your argument thusfar has been "you're not likely to get victimized so there's no reason to list this as a reason to own a gun." Well, if you're not likely to get into an auto accident, why wear a seatbelt?

You can die if you're in an auto accident. While you may never actually get into an accident (never victimized by crime) you still wear your seatbelt (own a gun) because if you do happen to get into an accident, however improbable, you could die from the force of a collision (or get shot, stabbed, raped, etc.) A seatbelt is not the best way to avoid dying in a collision. A gun is not the best way to avoid being victimized in a crime. However, in the split second those actions are taking place, those two safety features are the most effective means available to counter the threat to your life.

I did not say that was the reason. I asked you why so few law abiding citizens in the most violent areas of US society own guns and why gang violence is seemingly never prevented by law abiding, gun owning citizens.

Perhaps violence has nothing to do with guns and/or gun ownership?

The risk of harm where I currently live is so low, that the risk of harm I'd bring to my household and family by purchasing a gun is not worth it, IMO. I've though it over for awhile now. I'd still like to get one someday, but perhaps when my children are older.

Do you have stairs in your home?

You present way more of a risk by having stairs in your home than by owning a gun. I recommend flattening out those steps immediately if you want to keep your children safe.

How absurd does that sound? As absurd as that sounds to you (and several others on here I'm sure) to a gun owner, your comments sound the same. A gun isn't any more dangerous than any other inanimate mechanical device in your home. Take the same precautions with your gun that you take with medicines and poisons, electrical outlets, sharp objects, etc., and you'll have no problem keeping your family safe from that inanimate piece of metal. You don't worry about your kids and your car, do you? But, then again you probably don't leave the keys in the ignition and you probably don't allow them access to it while you're not with them. Same rules apply for a gun. It's an inanimate object.

[Peikko 1,575]

same BS study tactics in which violent offenders shot by cops and other violent offenders are grouped with the general populace. flawed analysis required to come to the predetermined agenda driven conclusion.

truth is, bad people are gonna get shot, either by cops, or more likely, by other bad people. we all know the truth, no matter how hard the liberal agenda tries to hide it.

Well, that's what your gut tells you has to be true because the study doesn't fit your John Wayne agenda. Reality is very different, this study wasn't set up to prove any agenda and in fact the findings were not intended to fuel either side of the gun ownership debate and was not carried out by a political organization or affiliate.

Your reaction to the study is more telling than the study itself - perhaps you are one of the gun owners to whom the gun give(s) a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations. That is certainly what my gut tells me

[slim 1,533]

Madame Cleo, please read that entire study.

Also, please note that it counts "armed" as someone who had a gun in their car, in their home, "near" them, etc. As justashooter noted above, it also counts criminals who shot each other or were shot by the police. Basically, when someone was shot in Philly (which has some pretty restrictive gun laws already) if they found a gun "near" that person, they were considered to be armed.

Surprise, surprise, most people who were shot were "armed." Citing a study like this shows your lack of understanding of "reality" and your consistent buy-in to the hype machine perpetuated by anti-gun and govt. agencies in the UK and the US. If you revisit the thread we have on here about that very study you'll also note that there's a distinct race line involved as well. Nobody's calling for a ban on young black men in urban areas.

... or is that what you're secretly pushing?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Do you have stairs in your home?

You present way more of a risk by having stairs in your home than by owning a gun. I recommend flattening out those steps immediately if you want to keep your children safe.

Stairs are of a concern, however, not as easy to avoid as merely choosing not to own a gun. There are a myriad of risks with having small children even though falling is the number one emergency room injury, eliminating the possibility of your child falling is next to impossible. If I could easily live without stairs around my home, I'd do so. Most parents will be thankful if they never have to rush their child to the emergency room, but there are so many ways that children can get hurt that about all you can do as a parent is minimize those risks to a manageable level. I do think that there are some gun owners with small children in their home who can effectively manage the risk, and then we have countless examples of gun owners who failed to manage that risk in a responsible way. Right now, I don't think I could manage the risk of owning a gun in my home. It's also a decision that my wife also has a say in.

[Peikko 1,575]

Madame Cleo, please read that entire study.

Also, please note that it counts "armed" as someone who had a gun in their car, in their home, "near" them, etc. As justashooter noted above, it also counts criminals who shot each other or were shot by the police. Basically, when someone was shot in Philly (which has some pretty restrictive gun laws already) if they found a gun "near" that person, they were considered to be armed.

Surprise, surprise, most people who were shot were "armed." Citing a study like this shows your lack of understanding of "reality" and your consistent buy-in to the hype machine perpetuated by anti-gun and govt. agencies in the UK and the US. If you revisit the thread we have on here about that very study you'll also note that there's a distinct race line involved as well. Nobody's calling for a ban on young black men in urban areas.

... or is that what you're secretly pushing?

Is that what 'online gun owner weekly' advised you was in the study?

[slim 1,533]

Right now, I don't think I could manage the risk of owning a gun in my home. It's also a decision that my wife also has a say in.

You still haven't provided why a gun adds a risk to your family. How does it add a risk? Also, make sure you educate your wife on those "risks" as well. Perhaps she'll grasp the concept even before you do and the two of you can mitigate these so-called "risks" together.

Is that what 'online gun owner weekly' advised you was in the study?

Still haven't read it, eh?

Just consider ALL the facts of these "studies" before you go blaming the availability of inanimate mechanical objects for society's problems.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You still haven't provided why a gun adds a risk to your family. How does it add a risk? Also, make sure you educate your wife on those "risks" as well. Perhaps she'll grasp the concept even before you do and the two of you can mitigate these so-called "risks" together.

The same way a table saw, electric drill, rat poison, etc., add potential risks to my family.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While that may be #######, can you not agree that if you are victimized, you'd fare better if you had a gun? I'm not a big believer in "you will be victimized at some point in your life" but I'm a huge believer in "if you happen to be victimized and you don't have a gun you'll probably wish you had."

How can anyone answer that question with any degree of certainty?

Do you wear your seatbelt?

I don't post this to be a smartass, just that you're not likely to get into a car accident every time you drive. Your argument thusfar has been "you're not likely to get victimized so there's no reason to list this as a reason to own a gun." Well, if you're not likely to get into an auto accident, why wear a seatbelt?

You can die if you're in an auto accident. While you may never actually get into an accident (never victimized by crime) you still wear your seatbelt (own a gun) because if you do happen to get into an accident, however improbable, you could die from the force of a collision (or get shot, stabbed, raped, etc.) A seatbelt is not the best way to avoid dying in a collision. A gun is not the best way to avoid being victimized in a crime. However, in the split second those actions are taking place, those two safety features are the most effective means available to counter the threat to your life.

No, you missed the other argument I made, which explained why I actually asked that question.

The reason I asked that question about cars is because I believe that on a basic level there is a correlation between the number of cars on the road, traffic congestion and the numbers of road traffic accidents (i.e. more cars on the road = more congested roads = the potential for more accidents)). In a similar way what I was trying to get at with guns is that more guns in society results in an overall state of affairs where you are more likely to shot (or into a situation involving brandished firearms) and that this has at least something to do with the other argument that a gun is "necessary" in order to feel safe.

That you feel that you need to equate a gun with a seat belt - kind of speaks to that. What you are trying to do there is make an existentialist argument to characterise guns in a way that ignores the functional design of the object to obscure the fact they are weapons (in other words you are trying to spin the issue - much in the way as other posters in previous threads tried to suggest that guns are no more dangerous than a pencil or a plastic bag. There is no similarity between these things on any level whatsoever and certainly not as a "safety device".

[justashooter 430]

Is that what 'online gun owner weekly' advised you was in the study?

about 80 people were killed with handgun by another person in january to april 2008 in the area from philly to york. ALL but 1 were drug traffickers fighting over drug turf. most were hispanic or black young men with felony priors or illegal status. don't like the truth, ignore it, but it still remains the truth.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, I know what the gunbloggers want the study to mean, and what each side pretends that it means, but that's neither here nor there, you guys don't know ###### beyond the received opinions you read up online - brilliant

None of it means squat to the main thrust of my argument that there is only really one good reason to own a gun, and that's because you enjoy shooting it and here's the thing, I have no problem with people owning guns because they want to shoot them so long as they are in good mental health and shoot things that are designed to be shot, or you want to take part in hunting (preferably using what is hunted and killed in some useful way, not just hunting because you like to kill things) As a result, sometimes, the fact that you like shooting things and you happen to have a gun may well help you out in just the same as all kinds of skills can prove useful in extreme situations. However, the notion that simply owning a gun necessarily means that one automatically gains greater personal security or even that greater personal security is necessary is bollocks, as is having a gun to maintain civil liberties - that is absolute bollocks and I don't think much of anyone who spews forth all this altruistic ####### when what they really mean is they like shooting guns. Idiocy, and idiocy that threatens the safety and security of the general population in a general way because more guns, means more gun injuries and fatalities, there is no getting around that statistical reality.

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh and Slim, that was absolute bollocks that only in the USA do people get let out on bail too, just so you know.

[natty bumppo 297]

and there you have it, folks - in bold.

they may well have a knife here in the usa too. however, nothing says i have to play fair/on the same scale as they do.

actually a screwdriver works just as well ... i have a co-worker who experienced this ....

[natty bumppo 297]

The same way a table saw, electric drill, rat poison, etc., add potential risks to my family.

your house must be empty ... otherwise any of these below items are a danger to your children (family)

Ammonia, bug sprays and traps, cleansers/disinfectants (including floor, carpet, oven, window and other cleaners), drain openers, medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter), polish (for furniture, metals or glass), soaps/detergents, vitamins/supplements/diet pills and other dietary supplements

All medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter), aftershave lotion, alcohol/hydrogen peroxide, bath oil, cleansers/disinfectants (including floor, window, toilet bowl, and tub/tile cleaners), deodorizers/sanitizers, drain openers, hair removers, hair colors/permanents, mouthwash, ointments, shampoo/hair products

Cosmetics (including nail polish/remover, perfumes/colognes), all medicines (including cough medicine, prescription drugs, and sleeping aids), mothballs, ointments

Antifreeze, cleaning fluids (including hand cleaner, car polish), fertilizer/weed killer, gasoline/kerosene, lighter fluid, lime/lye, mothballs, paint/paint remover, pesticides/insecticides, turpentine

Bleaches, cleaning fluids, soaps/detergents, stain removers, spray starch

Alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, nicotine patches, medicines (including prescription or over-the-counter, and pet medicine), poisonous plants (such as poison ivy, oak or sumac and some household plants)

Edited March 21, 2010 by Natty Bumppo

[Ban Hammer 14,066]

your house must be empty ... otherwise any of these below items are a danger to your children (family)

Ammonia, bug sprays and traps, cleansers/disinfectants (including floor, carpet, oven, window and other cleaners), drain openers, medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter), polish (for furniture, metals or glass), soaps/detergents, vitamins/supplements/diet pills and other dietary supplements

All medicines (both prescription and over-the-counter), aftershave lotion, alcohol/hydrogen peroxide, bath oil, cleansers/disinfectants (including floor, window, toilet bowl, and tub/tile cleaners), deodorizers/sanitizers, drain openers, hair removers, hair colors/permanents, mouthwash, ointments, shampoo/hair products

Cosmetics (including nail polish/remover, perfumes/colognes), all medicines (including cough medicine, prescription drugs, and sleeping aids), mothballs, ointments

Antifreeze, cleaning fluids (including hand cleaner, car polish), fertilizer/weed killer, gasoline/kerosene, lighter fluid, lime/lye, mothballs, paint/paint remover, pesticides/insecticides, turpentine

Bleaches, cleaning fluids, soaps/detergents, stain removers, spray starch

Alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, nicotine patches, medicines (including prescription or over-the-counter, and pet medicine), poisonous plants (such as poison ivy, oak or sumac and some household plants)

you left out a very important one: australians.