Firearms for self defence

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Umlaut » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:22 pm UTC

Brandishing is just displaying a deadly weapon. There are precious few laws that specifically mention firearms. Usually they are caught under "deadly weapons." Threatening someone with a firearm (or a knife for that matter) is called "criminal intimidation with a deadly weapon," and if you show the weapon, you get brandishing as well. There is also a mess of things relating to threatening with a concealed weapon that you could be busted on. When carrying a firearm, one has to be exceedingly careful in the way they act even without the gun out.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Maurog » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:14 am UTC

Wait, is threatening someone with a weapon you don't have the same as threatening them with a weapon you do have?

If I have a concealed trout and I threaten someone with it saying it's a gun, without brandishing the trout, will I get charged with "criminal intimidation with a deadly weapon," even though it's not in fact deadly nor a weapon?
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

jdege
curmudgeon in training
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby jdege » Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:54 pm UTC

zenten wrote:But cops do act as a real deterrent to criminals, and can also stop crimes in progress.

Cops rarely stop crimes in progress. Because criminals usually make an effort to make sure that when they commit a crime, the cops are somewhere else.

User avatar
Akula
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:55 pm UTC
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Akula » Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:43 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Brandishing is just displaying a deadly weapon. There are precious few laws that specifically mention firearms. Usually they are caught under "deadly weapons." Threatening someone with a firearm (or a knife for that matter) is called "criminal intimidation with a deadly weapon," and if you show the weapon, you get brandishing as well. There is also a mess of things relating to threatening with a concealed weapon that you could be busted on. When carrying a firearm, one has to be exceedingly careful in the way they act even without the gun out.


Which is why I love my state of Vermont. Concealed carry, open carry... no permits required. The only firearm law I am aware of is that it is illegal to carry a loaded longarm inside the cab of a vehicle. The reason for this law is to cut down on deer-jacking. Vermont. Yo
"I never let my schooling interfere with my education" - Mark Twain

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Torvaun » Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:25 pm UTC

And in a killing blow for the argument that lax gun control will increase gun killings, Vermont is something like number 49 as far as violent crimes per capita goes. If I were to leave Wisconsin, Vermont would have to be where I'd end up. Not just because of gun laws, but also because it has my kind of weather, Autumn leaves are beautiful, I love the maple syrup, and it's close enough to Maine for me to love the lobster without spending horrific amounts of money.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby fjafjan » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:05 pm UTC

Torvaun wrote:And in a killing blow for the argument that lax gun control will increase gun killings, Vermont is something like number 49 as far as violent crimes per capita goes. If I were to leave Wisconsin, Vermont would have to be where I'd end up. Not just because of gun laws, but also because it has my kind of weather, Autumn leaves are beautiful, I love the maple syrup, and it's close enough to Maine for me to love the lobster without spending horrific amounts of money.



This is utterly poor reasoning, state A has lax guns way state A has low crime, does not mean one does not follow from the other as there are a number of other factors that correlate with violence crime.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

jdege
curmudgeon in training
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby jdege » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:47 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Torvaun wrote:And in a killing blow for the argument that lax gun control will increase gun killings, Vermont is something like number 49 as far as violent crimes per capita goes.

This is utterly poor reasoning, state A has lax guns way state A has low crime, does not mean one does not follow from the other as there are a number of other factors that correlate with violence crime.

Actually, it's pretty good reasoning.

The "correlation is not causation" meme only works one way.

If A is correlated with B, then A may cause B, or B may cause A, or C may cause both A and B. That you see a correlation does not prove causation in either direction. If you see high levels of violence in areas with strict gun control, you cannot assume that the gun control caused the violence or the violence lead to the gun control.

But if A is not correlated with B, then you do know that A doesn't cause B, and that B does not cause A, and that there is no C that causes both A and B. Lack of correlation does prove lack of causation. If you see low levels of violence in areas with lax gun control, then you do know that lack of gun control does not lead to violence.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby fjafjan » Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:56 pm UTC

No it doesn't

There are no lions in sweden (okey, maybe one or two in zoos, you get the point)
Sweden is a welfare state

Clearly it must be that welfare states have no lions, right?

OH WAIT.

Simularily guns laws in place X, crime rate is state X, does not imply gun law X leeads to crime rate X as there are a vast number of other factors. the reasons there are no lions in sweden are pretty simple, it's too cold, but the reasons for crime rates in Vermont might have nothing to do with the gun laws there.
Lax gun control in vermont might have lead to slightly higher crime rates than there would have been without, but due to all the other factors that play in like the fact that vermont is mostly rural etc etc means that the crime rates will be low anyway. It might be that being a welfare state is terrible in terms of lion population yet...
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Torvaun » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:28 pm UTC

Vermont has the most lax gun control laws in the country. It has a significantly lower violent crime rate than almost every other state, including ones that are similarly rural (like New Hampshire). As of 2004, only Maine and North Dakota are lower. New Hampshire, a bordering and also very similar state as far as who lives there, population density, etc. has a violent crime rate approx. 150% of Vermont's. Likewise, Washington D.C., home to the most restrictive gun laws in the country, has an overwhelming violent crime rate, even when compared to places like New York City (also New York state, but the state has enough rural sections that the city would make a better comparison), Las Vegas, and Chicago.

Correlation may not be causation, but causation is a theory that supports these numbers.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Malice » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:15 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:No it doesn't

There are no lions in sweden (okey, maybe one or two in zoos, you get the point)
Sweden is a welfare state

Clearly it must be that welfare states have no lions, right?

OH WAIT.


Except that the other side of the argument says, "Welfare programs lead to lions running wild!"
Image

jdege
curmudgeon in training
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby jdege » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:41 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:but the reasons for crime rates in Vermont might have nothing to do with the gun laws there.

That is the whole point.

Vermont is evidence that gun laws don't affect the crime rate. Vermont isn't low-crime because it has lax gun laws. Vermont is proof that lax gun laws don't lead to higher crime. Just like D.C. is proof that strict gun laws don't lead to lower crime.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby fjafjan » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:57 pm UTC

jdege wrote:
fjafjan wrote:but the reasons for crime rates in Vermont might have nothing to do with the gun laws there.

That is the whole point.

Vermont is evidence that gun laws don't affect the crime rate. Vermont isn't low-crime because it has lax gun laws. Vermont is proof that lax gun laws don't lead to higher crime. Just like D.C. is proof that strict gun laws don't lead to lower crime.

No no and yet again no.
Okey here's a better example, sweden has no malaria programs. Does that mean havng malaria programs does not affect malaria rates? Well in some places yes obviously, in some othe rplaces obviously not.

The fact that vermont has relatively low crime rates and lax gun laws are not proof.
Why is the concept of several factors so hard to grasp?
The crime rates might very well have been affected, it might be that gun laws only affect crime rates when some othe factors are at play, say gang crime, it might be that vermont would have had even lower crime, this kind of utterly simplistic argument says nothing as it only looks at two things without even trying to take into account the dozen or so other important factors.

Simularily DC is not proof of the contrary, it might be if you did an actual analysis that takes into account the large number of things at play.



Except that the other side of the argument says, "Welfare programs lead to lions running wild!"

Okey say I claim there re no lions in sweden because it's cold. well how come there are no lions in mexico then? Aha! Clearly it cannot be that lack of gun laws increase crime because in this example there is low crime and no gun laws! No actually that does not follow.

Vermont has the most lax gun control laws in the country. It has a significantly lower violent crime rate than almost every other state, including ones that are similarly rural (like New Hampshire). As of 2004, only Maine and North Dakota are lower. New Hampshire, a bordering and also very similar state as far as who lives there, population density, etc. has a violent crime rate approx. 150% of Vermont's.

So you want to link to a good study that shows the most probable causes of this difference, there are a lage number of well known factors that affect crime statistics, are these all equal?
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Torvaun » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:33 am UTC

How about talking about what happened to violent crime in England that correlates damn near perfectly with the gun ban there? Now it's the same people, same population density, basically the same everything other than gun laws, and violent crime went through the proverbial roof.

Numbers!
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby VannA » Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:45 am UTC

Jjarro wrote:
VannA wrote:And, unfortunately, there is no actual way to stop people who do *not* follow the rules from carrying.

This is my fundamental issue with guns.

Stuff about deterence through reaction
.


Unfortunately, that won't stop them. Or even deter them, else it would deter people *now*.
It might reduce the relatively infrequent 'nervous' or 'stupid' discharge of a weapon.. and it would still just result in more dead people.

People on either side of the debate don't seem to like acknowledging that possesion/banning are not effective in preventing shooting sprees.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Umlaut » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 am UTC

@fjafjan: Actually, it has also been shown in many states that there is an obvious and measurable difference (lower, specifically) violent crime rate after enacting concealed carry laws (allowing it). There is a reason states keep passing these laws, and it is that they work.

Regarding the whole correlation/causation dealio: when you remove a factor and see a change in your data and then reintroduce that factor and see the reverse change (or remove the factor elsewhere and see the same change), that is pretty sound evidence. Now, if you remove the welfare state from Sweden, lions will not appear, but if you remove the permissive carry laws in Vermont, violent crime will appear.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

jdege
curmudgeon in training
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby jdege » Mon Oct 22, 2007 12:40 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:@fjafjan: Actually, it has also been shown in many states that there is an obvious and measurable difference (lower, specifically) violent crime rate after enacting concealed carry laws (allowing it). There is a reason states keep passing these laws, and it is that they work.

Image

Brandon Oto
treefucker
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:43 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Brandon Oto » Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:43 pm UTC

I am loath to get involved in this topic again, but I thought I would offer up a resource for you word warriors in the trenches -- http://useofforce.us/ is a website I made a couple years back that rounds up the practicalities of self defense law in the US in a cohesive way. I built and vetted every sentence myself and stand by it. Might be useful in this era of bad sources and biased information.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby 22/7 » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:26 pm UTC

What do "no-issue", "shall-issue", and "may-issue" mean?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby ZeroSum » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:31 pm UTC

No-issue: Concealed carry permits are not issued.
May-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued if you can prove you have some need. There exists a range within this category as to how strict that proof is. For example, RI might as well be a no-issue state unless you work security or are a former police officer.
Shall-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued unless the state determines you are unfit. For example if you are a felon or have a history of violence or abuse or are mentally incapable of handling a firearm.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby zenten » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:42 pm UTC

ZeroSum wrote:No-issue: Concealed carry permits are not issued.
May-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued if you can prove you have some need. There exists a range within this category as to how strict that proof is. For example, RI might as well be a no-issue state unless you work security or are a former police officer.
Shall-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued unless the state determines you are unfit. For example if you are a felon or have a history of violence or abuse or are mentally incapable of handling a firearm.


Are you looking at the law, or in practice? In practice (from what I've been told by gun enthusiasts here) Canada for instance is no-issue, even though in terms of our laws it is may-issue. I could see a State doing the same thing.

ZeroSum
Cooler than Jeff
Posts: 2903
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby ZeroSum » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:47 pm UTC

Wiki, No-issue wrote:A no-issue jurisdiction, within the context of gun law, is one that does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun ("concealed carry"). The term refers to the fact that no concealed carry permits will be issued (or recognized).
From what I understand most websites that bother disseminating whether states are no, may or shall-issue tend to get it right.

jdege
curmudgeon in training
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby jdege » Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:44 pm UTC

zenten wrote:
ZeroSum wrote:No-issue: Concealed carry permits are not issued.
May-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued if you can prove you have some need. There exists a range within this category as to how strict that proof is. For example, RI might as well be a no-issue state unless you work security or are a former police officer.
Shall-issue: A concealed carry permit will be issued unless the state determines you are unfit. For example if you are a felon or have a history of violence or abuse or are mentally incapable of handling a firearm.


Are you looking at the law, or in practice? In practice (from what I've been told by gun enthusiasts here) Canada for instance is no-issue, even though in terms of our laws it is may-issue. I could see a State doing the same thing.


The fundamental difference is what discretion is granted the issuing authority. Does he have the authority to deny a permit to an individual who meets the legal requirements, without showing cause?

For shall-issue states and no-issue states, the law and the practice are pretty much the same. No one can get a permit, or anyone who meets objective standards can get a permit.

For the may-issue states, the situation is more problematic. The definition used is that permits are issued at the discretion of the issuing authority, who is free to deny without cause.

In some states, that means that nobody gets a permit except licensed security guards. Hawaii is an example of this. In most states, the issuing authority is local - often the county sheriff. In many may-issue states, some issuing authorities are reasonable, and will grant a permit to anyone who qualifies, while other issuing authorities are not, and will not issue a permit to anyone. California is an example of this. In some counties, permits are relatively common. In others, they're handed out only to large campaign contributors.

In Minnesota, prior to the adoption of a shall-issue law in 2003, we had some sheriffs who issued to anyone who passed the background checks, and others who would not issue under any circumstances.

During the debates over the bill, one sheriff testified before the legislature that "I don't care if
somebody's chasing you down the street with a gun pointed at you, that's not a good enough reason for me because I don't believe more guns are going to help our society."

A lot of folks who didn't care much about the gun issue still found this unacceptable. Think what it would be like if the issuance of drivers licenses was may-issue. If you did the training, took the tests, passed the background checks, and then were denied a license because the issuing authority didn't think you had need, or didn't think anyone had need. We wouldn't dream of allowing the discretion to act in an arbitrary manner in any other area of government. We shouldn't allow it here.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Umlaut » Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:33 pm UTC

In many may-issue states (Colorado before the change to shall-issue was one), the local country sheriff not only gets to decide to issue a permit, but also if they want to recognize a permit issued in another county!
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

AbNo
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:00 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby AbNo » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:40 pm UTC

zenten wrote:I have never been in a situation where having a gun handy would have been really useful. Most people I know don't seem to have been either (they might all be hiding those times they had their house broken into while they were home, but I doubt it). Most of those that do found it useful while they were fighting overseas in the military. So, how useful are they for your average person?


Zen moment: How useful is your seatbelt when in a car? You may or may not have been in a car accident, but more than likely, you use it regardless of any legal reasons.

zenten wrote:Obviously there is some situation at some point where someone either protected themselves effectively with a gun where a cell phone dialing 911 wouldn't do, or they really would have done better had they had one, but I'm thinking it's rare, and I'm looking for evidence otherwise.


What are you doing when you call the cops? You're calling for someone with a gun (or two, or three), a taser, some tear gas, and a big ol' black stick to come take care of people.


Aaand, I have to cut this short, as I have surprise visitors.
Darwin was right, but nanny-staters keep trying to undermine him

User avatar
Torvaun
Posts: 2615
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:23 pm UTC
Location: 47°9′S, 126°43′W
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Torvaun » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:53 pm UTC

AbNo wrote:Aaand, I have to cut this short, as I have surprise visitors.

*BLAMBLAMBLAM*
Ok, no more visitors.
Hawknc wrote:I don't know if you've never heard of trolling, or if you're just very good at it.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Indon » Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:36 am UTC

Umlaut wrote:There is a reason states keep passing these laws, and it is that they work.


I take umbrage with the thought that state governments would pass laws because they're actually useful.

I'm all for allowing gun carrying licenses - I imagine anywhere where they don't exist, the regulatory law is simply largely ignored. But the thought that a state legislature makes judgments based on results, rather than political dynamics such as sponsorship and petitions? That, if you ask me, is silly.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Aran Kedar
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 2:03 am UTC
Location: Pataskala, OH (USA)
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Aran Kedar » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:34 am UTC

This may not be the right response for this topic, but here goes:

I live in Ohio. I recently found out about a disturbing law. Apparently, in Ohio, if someone breaks into your home armed with something like a bat or crowbar, and you shoot and injure/kill that person, their family can sue you.

Apparently, Ohio has reached the point where someone can break in and then sue you for an injury that they received while on your property as well.
You've been transfer-whacked.

User avatar
Kaiyas
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

Re:

Postby Kaiyas » Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:45 am UTC

Aluminum Falcom wrote:So, I'll say it right now, in all seriousness: no one NEEDS a gun.


Not at all given times, but there are times when not having one can get you killed/seriously injured. (Don't forget the military and police, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't what you were referring to.)

In essence, it's a kind of insurance. In some areas, you might not need a gun, just like you wouldn't need flood insurance in the Rockies. Yet there are certainly other places where it would be prudent to do so.
Image
clintonius wrote:This place is like mental masturbation

ks_physicist
Posts: 230
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:09 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby ks_physicist » Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:45 am UTC

Tagging this for reading later...

ETA: Apparently, I already did. Sorry!

AbNo
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:00 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby AbNo » Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:17 am UTC

Aran Kedar wrote:I live in Ohio. I recently found out about a disturbing law. Apparently, in Ohio, if someone breaks into your home armed with something like a bat or crowbar, and you shoot and injure/kill that person, their family can sue you.


Talk to the Buckeye Firearms Association, I'm pretty sure they are working on that.

Also, I would like to apologize for forum necromancy. I'd just returned from getting all kinds of weird chemicals dumped into my blood to check on my heart. :oops:
Darwin was right, but nanny-staters keep trying to undermine him

pyrebuilder
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:32 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby pyrebuilder » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:35 am UTC

as for the original subject...
guns work extremely well for self defense, or more accurately, gun control works amazingly badly for self defense.
i used to live in hawaii, where gun control was so strict my parents never taught me how to shoot a gun, there were so many rape, murder, and suicide reports in the newspaper that it was hard to ignore them, now i live in arizona, where every few citizens has a gun. i have yet to see a single story of a firearm being used in a crime. when someone is armed, then they are a very powerful individual, and this restricts many impulses for crime when you know that there are more of "them" than you and most of "them" have guns, and at most your gonna have two. you dont get massive statistics because most of it is preventative self defense, not active defense.

and yes, people need guns! jesus... hunting! believe it or not, a good portion of America's country still hunts for their food! if you cant even buy a target rifle or pistol, which could also help train you for future enlistment in the army, then your out of luck.
and besides, i could say with much more conviction that no one NEEDS soccer balls. or what about baseball bats? its just a game, no true use, and the bats are used in murders and property damage all the time! lets tax and ban those, why dont we?

User avatar
Sparv
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Sparv » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:48 am UTC

I'm thinking about asking this question in a poll...

Are you ready to go on a date with somebody who is carrying a gun?
Shit happens

pyrebuilder
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:32 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby pyrebuilder » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:55 am UTC

yes. they obviously know how to handle a weapon, they are a stong willed type of person, and they are active in the defense of their nation.
(btw, im not all that patriotic, im just not gonna let the U.S. be overrun if i have a choice)

User avatar
Kendo_Bunny
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:56 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Kendo_Bunny » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

The primary defense guns were supposed to be for according to the Founding Fathers was defense against the government. So gun owners are contributing to real national defense.

As for dating someone carrying a gun- I'm definitely a poor sample, considering that I've always been fascinated by guns, but the best dates I've ever been on involved guns. Watching a man competently handling a firearm is both sexy and reassuring, because it gives a wonderful warm feeling that he's going to protect you if the chips are down. Handling the gun yourself is an empowering feeling, especially if you're an excellent shot, because you know that you could take care of yourself and you know that he knows that too. I find having my gun loaded for me extremely romantic, as well as getting to have the first shots of the day. Possibly the most appreciated I've ever felt was having my targets taken down and exclaimed over to the rest of the range, because I had done such a good job. Add that to having my stance corrected by his arms over mine... :oops:

To take another sample, my best friend who was NOT interested in guns went shooting with me, AbNo, her husband, and another friend. Watching her husband handling a gun, she told me she understood what I meant when I said seeing how competent the man you love is with a firearm is very sexy and that holding a gun makes you feel sexy. She didn't class it as the most romantic date ever like I did when AbNo said 'I'm taking you out to the range this weekend- I'm going to teach you how to shoot'. But let's just say that her husband was a happy man when they got home. They're also now considering buying a gun- a .22 automatic for home defense.

User avatar
Varsil
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Varsil » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:47 am UTC

Kendo_Bunny wrote:The primary defense guns were supposed to be for according to the Founding Fathers was defense against the government. So gun owners are contributing to real national defense.


See, I'm actually all for this, even though I'm not a fan of people carrying guns. So I'd be a lot happier about laws allowing people to own an AK-47 than about laws allowing them to carry a M1911 around. I'm much more in favour of limiting handguns and being lax on long arms than the reverse.

User avatar
ElvisTCB
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:57 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby ElvisTCB » Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:34 am UTC

I doubt most of the people posting on this board live in a area where they would ever even need a gun for protection.

I also think this country has a lot more important things to worry about and waste time and money on.
so there I was

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:19 am UTC

As in the individuals in this country shouldn't be wasting money on weapons because by your estimation they aren't going to need them? Or the government should stop wasting money legislating on the topic? Or...what? I'm not getting a whole lot of meaning out of your post.

User avatar
ElvisTCB
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:57 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby ElvisTCB » Mon Jun 30, 2008 3:40 am UTC

I am saying its an important issue that more than likely does not impact the majority of the people posting here and that we, as a country, have much more important things to be worried about.

IMO you could "save" more people by doing something to get the price of gas down than you could by trying to somehow take guns out of their hands


Just priorities... that's all.. we as a country and world have bigger ones
so there I was

AbNo
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:00 am UTC

Re: Firearms for self defence

Postby AbNo » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:35 am UTC

ElvisTCB wrote:I doubt most of the people posting on this board live in a area where they would ever even need a gun for protection.

I also think this country has a lot more important things to worry about and waste time and money on.


I've lived in Little Rock, AR, San Antonio, TX, Atlanta, GA, Miami, FL, Washington DC, and parts of Maryland, including near Baltimore.

And I spent some time deployed to Saudi Arabia. Do any of those count? :mrgreen:

ElvisTCB wrote:IMO you could "save" more people by doing something to get the price of gas down than you could by trying to somehow take guns out of their hands


Drill here, Drill now*. It's basic economics**. :wink:
*: Domestic oil must be used for domestic gasoline.
**: Law of supply and demand.


But anyway, back on topic.....
Darwin was right, but nanny-staters keep trying to undermine him

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Re:

Postby Indon » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:01 pm UTC

Kaiyas wrote:In essence, it's a kind of insurance. In some areas, you might not need a gun, just like you wouldn't need flood insurance in the Rockies. Yet there are certainly other places where it would be prudent to do so.


And unlike insurance companies, a gun won't try to scam you just when you need one the most!
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests