Pro gun rights but would never own a gun...agree?

[Ranulfe]

If the risk is low enough for you to chance it, great, I'm glad you have that much confidence in your countrymen. Frankly it will never be low enough for me. I'm not willing to risk the safety of my family so someone else can feel safer, because I don't have a gun.

[Jackmoves]

Ya, I get that, but even if the chances are 1/1000000 that the intruder has violent intentions I would err on the side of caution when the stakes are potentially so high. Like I said before as well, the crime issue here in the U.S. is a cultural factor much more than it is a guns/capita issue.

Yeah I hear you, I think it's ingrained in you, damn gun nut!

If the risk is low enough for you to chance it, great, I'm glad you have that much confidence in your countrymen. Frankly it will never be low enough for me. I'm not willing to risk the safety of my family so someone else can feel safer, because I don't have a gun.

I guess you kind of nailed it, I would phrase it differently though, I do not feel like I'm chancing or risking anything by not having a handgun at home, that to me is great, that is what it should be like, you should feel safe, which I do. If a person need a gun to feel safe, thats up to that person really, I'm not trying to argue against the right to own a handgun, I don't think it's the perfect solution though, I think people should be able to feel 100% at ease without a gun at home, which I'm pretty sure 99% of the population of my country do, those who don't are probably involved in organized crime and risk their lifes as part of their "job", the ordinary gun owner here don't buy a gun for security, you buy it because you are either hunting or have an interest in it/is a "competative shooter".

Fear(not saying you are going around fearing anything) is completely irrational, for example my gf always call me on her cell when she's been out on town with her friends, the risk of her getting assualted on her way from the tram station to our appartment is again... minimal but she is still affraid to walk home from the tram by herself late at night so I always come down to meet her.

[Deleted]

This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with my wife.

We live in Canada, where we are allowed to own many firearms, but are fairly heavily restricted on their use, transport and storage.

The question of whether or not I would carry a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense came up in conversation. I told her I would if I could and she vehemently disagreed, saying it was unnecessary and that the chance that I would ever need to use it was so slight, the inconvenience of carrying it wouldn't be worth the trouble. I asked her if she wore her seat belt when she drove her car, and she told me "that was different". I challenged her as I would every other person who is 'anti-gun' to explain the difference. The fact is that a gun used for self defense (usually a pistol, for all you pistol haters) and a seat belt are fundamentally the same thing: a device used to protect yourself from harm.

Not everyone wants to own a gun, and frankly I really don't care if you do or don't own one or want to. All I ask is the same consideration.

That seat belt is not generally defending you from another seat belt tho.

People are really forgetting what criminals are. They are just people like you and me, but somehow got a bit derailed. There is no telling when this happened and how sudden this happened. For all I know you go into work a law abiding citizen, get harrassed by a colleague, get into an argument, get sent home and just snap on the way home. Thank god in my country in any situation like this you are not carrying a weapon.

As for the home protection guys saying even a one in a million chance justifies the gun? No it does not. Your life is not worth the life of a million criminals. Heck, your life probably is not even worth the life of 3 criminals.

[prwraith]

That seat belt is not generally defending you from another seat belt tho.

People are really forgetting what criminals are. They are just people like you and me, but somehow got a bit derailed. There is no telling when this happened and how sudden this happened. For all I know you go into work a law abiding citizen, get harrassed by a colleague, get into an argument, get sent home and just snap on the way home. Thank god in my country in any situation like this you are not carrying a weapon.

As for the home protection guys saying even a one in a million chance justifies the gun? No it does not. Your life is not worth the life of a million criminals. Heck, your life probably is not even worth the life of 3 criminals.

I love how you just put a value on his and our lives. get out of this thread. The idea is that if you cross the threshold to my home with harmful intentions you sign your life away. But saying that a lawful homeowner who has nothing more in mind than the protection of his family against a harmful assailant is worth less than the assailants. You disgust me

Keep posts respectful. - Dacien

[Deleted]

I love how you just put a value on his and our lives. get out of this thread.

You put a very low value on the burglars life. And as for the get out of this thread statement? Reported..

[prwraith]

You put a very low value on the burglars life. And as for the get out of this thread statement? Reported..

I really am at a complete loss as to how someone who willingly signs their life away by invading anothers home is worth more than a lawful homeowner. give me a break.

[Deleted]

And you must realize that because our population is so much larger than most EU countries your totals don't mean shit. Lets take a look at Murder (All homicides, not just gun related) rates per 1mil people in a few countries shall we?

Turkey 184 / 1mil
Ukraine 48 / 1mil
Finland 33 / 1mil
Hungary 19 / 1mil
Sweden 18 / 1mil
Belgium 18 / 1mil
Australia 17 / 1mil
Portugal 16 / 1mil
Switzerland 13 / 1mil
Italy 12 / 1mil


The rest of the EU goes between 6-12 per 1mil in 2006, (All stats were done in 2006). Now near as I can find online USA had a combined homicide rate of 12 / 1mil in 2006. 60% of these deaths were gang related in minority lower-class communities. So, take out those assholes out and our murder rate per 1mil in 2006 was almost HALF of what the EU experienced. Lower than countries like Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Norway.

Spain seems to be the exception with only .48 /1mil murder rate in 2006, so I guess if the rest of us would just take up Flamingo dancing it would all work out.

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...apita&b_map=1#

According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm there were 15k murders in 2010. This comes to around 47/million

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 01:29 AM ----------

I really am at a complete loss as to how someone who willingly signs their life away by invading anothers home is worth more than a lawful homeowner. give me a break.

What? Now you are making up stuff. I said you are not worth more than 3 burglars. This puts you at still worth way more than a criminal. Also they do not willingly sign their life away. They are taking the risk of the penalties that were decided upon as a country. In no country should that penalty be death by civilian gunfire. They only legally take the risk of a few years in jail. Which is fitting to the harshness of their crime.

[Jaxi]

You put a very low value on the burglars life.

I fail to see your point here. No, I don't value the life of a man invading my home that may or may not be trying to cause to myself or my family. So?

[Iamgob]

Guns are just too much fun to get rid of.

[prwraith]

According to http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm there were 15k murders in 2010. This comes to around 47/million

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 01:29 AM ----------

What? Now you are making up stuff. I said you are not worth more than 3 burglars. This puts you at still worth way more than a criminal. Also they do not willingly sign their life away. They are taking the risk of the penalties that were decided upon as a country. In no country should that penalty be death by civilian gunfire. They only legally take the risk of a few years in jail. Which is fitting to the harshness of their crime.

So alright assuming and this is a big assumption, that guns were illegal. That someone broke into your home with lets say a bat and or knife. Your family's in the house, it's completely unreasonable that you can evacuate a family from several rooms with an assailant likely in the middle of the house. You don't think that a man putting several people in potentially life ending scenarios voids the mans life?

Don't get me wrong if you happen to be trained in such a way to disable the man, go for it. But the mass majority of the populace is not. You should not be required to potentially risk the lives of your family to preserve the life of someone who put them at risk.

[Deleted]

So alright assuming and this is a big assumption, that guns were illegal. That someone broke into your home with lets say a bat and or knife. Your family's in the house, it's completely unreasonable that you can evacuate a family from several rooms with an assailant likely in the middle of the house. You don't think that a man putting several people in potentially life ending scenarios voids the mans life?

Don't get me wrong if you happen to be trained in such a way to disable the man, go for it. But the mass majority of the populace is not. You should not be required to potentially risk the lives of your family to preserve the life of someone who put them at risk.

Burglars don't generally come into homes with bats and/or knives. They generally flee at the first sign of life. A burglar is not an assailant. As for the bolded sentence, if you would put potentionally before putting instead of before life ending scenarios it would actually make some sort of sense. Now it is just a sentence that is implying that every burglar is an assailant which hardly is the case.

[IIamaKing]

You put a very low value on the burglars life. And as for the get out of this thread statement? Reported..

I put NO value on a criminals life.

[Deleted]

I fail to see your point here. No, I don't value the life of a man invading my home that may or may not be trying to cause to myself or my family. So?

General law does. For the general law a simple burglar is not completely worthless. It is just a person that needs rehabilitation and punishment. You are placing yourself above the law by assuming he has murderous intent and killing him in what you claim to be selfdefense whilst most likely there was no way the situation could have played out that would have ended with you being dead.

[prwraith]

Burglars don't generally come into homes with bats and/or knives. They generally flee at the first sign of life. A burglar is not an assailant. As for the bolded sentence, if you would put potentionally before putting instead of before life ending scenarios it would actually make some sort of sense. Now it is just a sentence that is implying that every burglar is an assailant which hardly is the case.

Ok i'll buy that, some would flee at the first sign of resistance. In which case it's kind of a moot point because me cocking my shotgun will deter anyone with half a brain and that will be that. No loss of life, but if they don't flee what do you suggest doing?

[solsunforge]

Why would you be pro gun rights when you don't want to own one?

I believe gun rights bring only more problems than they solve so I am against it. I also don't feel the need to own one at all. I live in a small/medium sized town and there are barely murders, robberies or house invasions here. I rather use other precautions to prevent someone from stealing my property. I also don't have to hunt for my food, lol.
I would feel less safe when everyone can just buy guns from the supermarket around the corner. You know how many idiots would be able to carry a gun? They could be mentally 'unstable' or maybe they could shoot you by accident or whatever reason. Every person is able to be blinded by rage and hate and do crazy things they would normally never do.

Oh I dont know the same reason im for allowing anyone to live they want. Just like im for gay marrige but im not gay. Your logic is fallable

[Mister K]

Knives are made to cut things but you can also stab people with them. IMO

Pencils, Pens too your point?

The gun laws should be very strict, while everyone should be able to be eligible it should be hard to get one. No criminal record or anything, tests and expensive permit, background checks etc...

[Zamfix]

Guns are made to fire small lead projectiles at high speed. Knives are made to cut things but you can also stab people with them. IMO guns are just a tool and its people who are to blame for their misuse. These people would use whatever tool they want to kill someone if they want to. Fix the person not the inanimate objest he uses.

As for the question you will get lots of disagrees for Pro gun rights and have guns, anti gun rights have guns, and anti gun rights dont have guns. I do wish more people in this country would let other people do what they want even if you dont personally want to participate.

Name a use for a gun other than killing or maiming something. It's a pretty limited "tool."

[Deleted]

So alright assuming and this is a big assumption, that guns were illegal. That someone broke into your home with lets say a bat and or knife. Your family's in the house, it's completely unreasonable that you can evacuate a family from several rooms with an assailant likely in the middle of the house. You don't think that a man putting several people in potentially life ending scenarios voids the mans life?

Don't get me wrong if you happen to be trained in such a way to disable the man, go for it. But the mass majority of the populace is not. You should not be required to potentially risk the lives of your family to preserve the life of someone who put them at risk.

You fail to see that BURGLARS arent ever in the intention to really harm anyone (speaking for my country only, Austria btw). My grandma got robbed (her flat was being intruded, she was not robbed at the supermarket) like 1 or 2 years ago while she was at the supermarket. She came home and the burglars noticed that early enough to run away with what they had in their bags. Thats the usual behaviour of thieves, they dont try to harm anyone.

I believe, no facts here, that the chance of having an invader in the house while the time you (and your family) is/are at home who seriously would kill someone AND who could be stopped by a gun (it's more likely he took someone hostage by the time you realise he's there) is by far lower than the threat the gun by its shear existance poses (for example children getting it in their hands, ...).

I know, some people feel safer with guns, but in my opinion, it's simply not logical to really own one.

[Deleted]

Ok i'll buy that, some would flee at the first sign of resistance. In which case it's kind of a moot point because me cocking my shotgun will deter anyone with half a brain and that will be that. No loss of life, but if they don't flee what do you suggest doing?

Anything that does not escalate the situation. Fleeing would still often be a safer bet than becoming a serious threat to the burglar. Even if the burglar is armed he will not harm you until you become a threat.

The only situation where a gun in-house would actually serve a useful purpose if it was not a burglar that came in for easy money, but either a psycho murderer looking for easy prey for his sick needs or a murderer with something specifically against you. There guns would come in handy and if I would ever feel I was going to be in such a situation I would (illegally) arm myself. Letting a whole country arm itself for reasons lesser than this just does not have enough benefits to overcome the downsides.

I would like to see a study about the spread inside America between murder in rural areas and murder in cities. I would not be surprised that in the places where guns only serve as selfdefense against criminals are the areas with the most murder, whilst the areas where hunting is common and even protection from wildlife is a valid point murder is as low as Canada or the better European countries.

Oh I dont know the same reason im for allowing anyone to live they want. Just like im for gay marrige but im not gay. Your logic is fallable

This is so incredibly true. That you don't use a right or privilege is not a reason to be against it and certainly not a reason it should not exist. There needs to be actual arguments for it, showing actual downsides to the existence of the right or privilege that are on par with or exceed to upsides. If only politicians would accept this in terms of certain drugs. But now I'm getting off-topic :P

anyway it is getting late here in my European country so I am off to bed

[Iamgob]

Name a use for a gun other than killing or maiming something. It's a pretty limited "tool."

Competition