Here is a reason to own a gun

[Scott & Lai 12]

you left out a very important one: australians.

Pffft...doesn't that go without saying?

[justashooter 430]

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)

another idiot fails the citizenship test for failure to read the second amendment and the background arguments leading to it in the federalist papers. gun ownership is not constitutionally protected for recreational purposes. it is constitutionally protected for purpose of defense of the individual and the state from enemies, foreign and domestic.

this principle has been re-affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller, in Miller, etc. elmer fudd duck hunters have no constitutionally protected rights. joe homeowner, jack concealed carry, and jerry ex-GI do.

IIRC, America threw the brits out over this issue, but i understand that as a brainwashed subject of the crown that you do not understand the civil liberties that Americans have, which are, ironically, based on english common law. how sad the origin of liberty has cast it so blithely away.

keep your stupid continental "guns for the elite" thinking on your own side of the pond. it does not play well here.

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

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)

Yes. It's about managing risks within your household and looking at the benefit to risk ratio. Owning a gun for me personally is not a necessity and I do not fear of anyone breaking in to my home where I live, but it would be nice to own one (I even have it narrowed down to a couple). If I felt I could manage the risk, I'd consider having one, but not at this point in time.

[Peikko 1,575]

another idiot fails the citizenship test for failure to read the second amendment and the background arguments leading to it in the federalist papers. gun ownership is not constitutionally protected for recreational purposes. it is constitutionally protected for purpose of defense of the individual and the state from enemies, foreign and domestic.

this principle has been re-affirmed by SCOTUS in Heller, in Miller, etc. elmer fudd duck hunters have no constitutionally protected rights. joe homeowner, jack concealed carry, and jerry ex-GI do.

IIRC, America threw the brits out over this issue, but i understand that as a brainwashed subject of the crown that you do not understand the civil liberties that Americans have, which are, ironically, based on english common law. how sad the origin of liberty has cast it so blithely away.

keep your stupid continental "guns for the elite" thinking on your own side of the pond. it does not play well here.

Just because it has been interpreted as a constitutional right to achieve a purpose, does not mean for one minute that it would or could work to that end. It is in fact one of the silliest fallacy I know of. You imagine in your deluded state that UK citizens have no civil liberties, that is laughable too. Civil liberties are guaranteed by maintaining the electoral process and making sure as many citizens as possible engage in the process and not just on election day not by a random selection of nutters with guns.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

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 #######.

It is not!

You either missunderstand or willfully choose to ignore what is meant.

IF the time comes, never saying WHEN but only IF, that you are about to be attacked by someone. What choice do you have to avoid being a victimized person??

Being armed is your only option to stop this event.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is not!

You either missunderstand or willfully choose to ignore what is meant.

IF the time comes, never saying WHEN but only IF, that you are about to be attacked by someone. What choice do you have to avoid being a victimized person??

Being armed is your only option to stop this event.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the danger is grossly exaggerated

And no, being "armed" is not your only option. Nor is it a guarantee of personal safety.

[slim 1,533]

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

So just answer a simple question - what are you going to do if someone breaks into your house while you're home?

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

If there are no bail enforcement agents, who returns the criminals to jail? Who ensures the bail bondsman gets their money back?

IIRC, America threw the brits out over this issue, but i understand that as a brainwashed subject of the crown that you do not understand the civil liberties that Americans have, which are, ironically, based on english common law. how sad the origin of liberty has cast it so blithely away.

Remember Merriam's Corner! Huzzah!

Yes. It's about managing risks within your household and looking at the benefit to risk ratio. Owning a gun for me personally is not a necessity and I do not fear of anyone breaking in to my home where I live, but it would be nice to own one (I even have it narrowed down to a couple). If I felt I could manage the risk, I'd consider having one, but not at this point in time.

If you understand there are risks associated with having a gun (much in the same way there are risks to owning an automobile, circular saw, etc.,) then why haven't you also determined the ways to minimize that risk around your children? There are 100% safe ways to store a gun. If you don't feel you need a gun, that's fine (although I don't know how you can call yourself an American) but don't say "I'd like a gun... but it's just not safe right now." The safety of anything in your home is determined by you, not by the physical presence of that particular inanimate object. Your house isn't less safe because there's an automobile in the garage, is it? Sure the benefit of having an automobile far outweighs the risk it could present to your kids, but you still manage that risk in a responsible manner, no? Why would a gun be any different?

Just because it has been interpreted as a constitutional right to achieve a purpose, does not mean for one minute that it would or could work to that end. It is in fact one of the silliest fallacy I know of. You imagine in your deluded state that UK citizens have no civil liberties, that is laughable too. Civil liberties are guaranteed by maintaining the electoral process and making sure as many citizens as possible engage in the process and not just on election day not by a random selection of nutters with guns.

If you don't have a means to back up your vote... are you asking the government to comply with your wishes or are you telling them?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the danger is grossly exaggerated

And no, being "armed" is not your only option. Nor is it a guarantee of personal safety.

What is your other option when confronted by someone intent on doing you harm? While I realize you can run from danger, danger is not overcome by fleeing from it. You can hide from it, sure, but what option do you have when danger pursues you?

Oh, I forgot. That's never going to happen.

[slim 1,533]

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.

It's necessary to look more at "who" has the guns than "how many" guns there are. Take for instance a state like North Dakota or even New Hampshire. These states have a much higher guns-per-capita rate than even somewhere like California or Texas yet have a much lower crime rate. Why is that?

I know I'm arguing per-capita as opposed to overall numbers, and I'll be honest, I don't have a link to statistics, but if you sit back and think about the big picture, it's pretty easy to see why it's not a numbers game. It's also important to note that often those numbers include guns in the hands of criminals who aren't legally allowed to own them anyway. If it's already illegal... how are we going to make it more illegal?

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".

Sure there is a similarity between these two inanimate mechanical devices. A seatbelt is a passive restraint system designed to prevent your body from continuing to move at a high rate of speed once your automobile has ceased moving at a high rate of speed. A gun is an active engagement system designed to propel a small object at a high rate of speed when activated. Either system can be used to save your life when your life is threatened, that's what makes them similar.

You have a smoke detector in your home, right? (Passive.) A fire extinguisher, right? (Active.) To say you never need a fire extinguisher because you can just run out of your house and call the fire department from a neighbors home would be silly. Why is the same argument about stopping a person intent on causing you harm silly? Are you simply going to flee your own home and call for help from a neighbors house? Keep in mind when you run from a house fire it doesn't typically follow you or if it does, it's usually at a reasonable rate that you're capable of outrunning. A person intent on doing you harm? Not so much. They can run a lot faster. Hell, sometimes they even have buddies.

While I'm not one of those gun owners who's continually making the "it's going to happen to you someday so you should be ready" arguments, I will say that it does happen and it could happen, so why not be ready? If your choice is be ready and possibly combat the threat or not be ready and almost certainly get raped, robbed, killed, I'm going to choose the more ready option. Sure I may not win every time, but why should I not try to up my probability of winning just because the chance of it ever happening is so low?

I'm going out to dinner with my wife tonight and we're probably not going to get into a collision on the way there. But... I'm still going to wear my seatbelt all the same. And yes, my gun will be tucked into my hip too. You never know what you might face. Better to be prepared and not need it than unprepared and wanting.

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

If you understand there are risks associated with having a gun (much in the same way there are risks to owning an automobile, circular saw, etc.,) then why haven't you also determined the ways to minimize that risk around your children? There are 100% safe ways to store a gun. If you don't feel you need a gun, that's fine (although I don't know how you can call yourself an American) but don't say "I'd like a gun... but it's just not safe right now." The safety of anything in your home is determined by you, not by the physical presence of that particular inanimate object. Your house isn't less safe because there's an automobile in the garage, is it? Sure the benefit of having an automobile far outweighs the risk it could present to your kids, but you still manage that risk in a responsible manner, no? Why would a gun be any different?

Its got nothing to do with being an American, slim. Lets be honest here, there are some people who have no business driving, let alone owning a vehicle. Same with a gun. Now I'm not suggesting any policy changes, just merely pointing out that not every American should own a gun even if it is their legal right to. That said, I do believe that I would be a responsible gun owner, but right now I just don't want the added responsibility and I don't feel any real need to own one beyond my own personal want. I'd love to own a handgun for target practice. I hope that I'll be able to convince my wife at some point, but even if her concerns of safety were satisfactorily addressed, there are a multitude of higher priorities for our family that should happen before we'd go out and purchase a gun.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[slim 1,533]

Its got nothing to do with being an American, slim. Lets be honest here, there are some people who have no business driving, let alone owning a vehicle. Same with a gun. Now I'm not suggesting any policy changes, just merely pointing out that not every American should own a gun even if it is their legal right to. That said, I do believe that I would be a responsible gun owner, but right now I just don't want the added responsibility and I don't feel any real need to own one beyond my own personal want. I'd love to own a handgun for target practice. I hope that I'll be able to convince my wife at some point, but even if her concerns of safety were satisfactorily addressed, there are a multitude of higher priorities for our family that should happen before we'd go out and purchase a gun.

I think you'd be a respsonsible gun owner too, that's why I don't see the problem with you having one. If it's from the issue of "our $500 would be better spent on stuff like T-Ball seasons and Pampers" sure I get it. But the "my wife doesn't think it's safe and won't let me have one" argument doesn't fly with me. Nor does the "it's just too risky to have a gun in the house with kids."

Take her to the range! Show her how a biometric safe works. Show her how it's completely impossible for a gun to fire without bullets! She's got to be smart (she married you, right?) enough to understand that it's not unsafe, she just needs to be shown.

One of the huge misconceptions about firearms in the home is "it's just not safe." Well, that's just not true. Often times the folks making that assumption have never even fired a gun, don't understand their operation, and base their opinions only on what they've seen on TV or read in a newspaper.

Make them understand!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No Slim, a seatbelt and a gun are entirely different things. They are not comparable. To suggest that they are is just spin.

An "active engagement system indeed", do you have any more euphemisms in your repertoire? It's a weapon Slim, call it what it is.

It's necessary to look more at "who" has the guns than "how many" guns there are. Take for instance a state like North Dakota or even New Hampshire. These states have a much higher guns-per-capita rate than even somewhere like California or Texas yet have a much lower crime rate. Why is that?

Different socioeconomic groups? Lower population density?

[slim 1,533]

No Slim, a seatbelt and a gun are entirely different things. They are not comparable. To suggest that they are is just spin.

An "active engagement system indeed", do you have any more euphemisms in your repertoire? It's a weapon Slim, call it what it is.

You can use a seatbelt as a weapon and you can use a gun to save your life. Spin it however I may, it still requires a human to make choices and decisions and take action to effect some kind of action onto these inanimate mechanical objects.

Is a gun bad because it was designed specifically to kill people and a seatbelt good because it was designed specifically to save people? Do mechanical devices now have "animate" qualities?

Different socioeconomic groups? Lower population density?

So it has nothing to do with the actual number of inanimate mechanical devices originally designed to kill people? You mean to tell me it has more to do with people themselves and the decisions they make?

Slow down here, you almost sound like you're getting ready to say people should be responsible for their own actions and not blame them on inanimate mechanical devices!

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

Take her to the range! Show her how a biometric safe works. Show her how it's completely impossible for a gun to fire without bullets! She's got to be smart (she married you, right?) enough to understand that it's not unsafe, she just needs to be shown.

Someday, I will.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you don't have a means to back up your vote... are you asking the government to comply with your wishes or are you telling them?

Clearly you fundamentally misunderstand what an elected government is. If you don't understand it, you can't possibly hope to protect it, guns or no guns.

[Ban Hammer 14,062]

Clearly you fundamentally misunderstand what an elected government is. If you don't understand it, you can't possibly hope to protect it, guns or no guns.

wasn't hitler elected?