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

[xylophone]

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

Destroying munitions, disabling a vehicle

[prwraith]

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...

Money should not be the obstacle for feeling safe. being a good morally and psychological sound person at the moment and historically are enough. With no visible signs of devolving into anything lesser.

[Jackmoves]

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, ...).

Thats a funny theory that I actually think is a valid concern, I'm sure there would be people that would be careless with their guns, it's like owning a dog, a lot of people are fucking clueless about it, I'd actually be worried about some idiot accidently shooting themselves/let their kids get their hands on the gun, while I'm not worried in the slightest about someone murdering me, my gf or anyone I know or ever met in their/my house/appartment.

[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.

Ok i will give a shot at trying to explain the difference then.

The difference is maybe not noticeable at first to you, but there are some consequences when the general public starts to arm themselves for defensive purposes. You might argue that you will not have any impact as a single person, but that's besides the point.

The easiest way to explain it is basically to say that if a criminal expects you to be armed he will bring a gun to a gun fight... if he expects you to have nothing, well the chances are he will probably not have anything either and in most countries like this where he expects nothing he will most likely just leg it instead of taking the fight. If he is afraid of being gunned down in the back while running away, he will use a gun he brought to defend himself from just from that.

I know soo many people here like to just ignore people from other countries that tell them that they have never experienced the fear of criminals and guns like they themselves are explaining, but the sad fact is that they are often telling the truth.

I can even give an example. My aunt had a man break into her apartment from a window in her kitchen, she was sleeping in a chair in the living room and woke up to see him suddenly standing there. HE freaked out and ran as quickly as HE could when she told him to get the hell out of her apartment. The few times we hear about violent break in's over the years it has been national news because it is soo rare.

People that compare, not owning a gun, to Russian roulette and the like, is trying to explain an irrational fear of something by giving crazy scenarios as prof of when a gun would be useful "what would you do if this, and this, and this all happened?" when the truth is, that you are more likely to get your family killed in a car accident then you would ever have from a burglar breaking in. Would you stop driving your car because of that irrational fear? Then why get a gun.

You might think that you should feel safer if you are allowed to arm yourself, but in fact it is shown that almost every other country that doesn't arm themselves for self defense purposes, the criminals act a lot less violently and extreme because they do not fear for their lives as the are committing a crime.

Some of you will argue that the person maybe should fear for his life, and that it is your right to make him do just that with your huge gun in his face since he broke into your home. But then i would advice you to consider the general safety of the family you are claiming to protect, since it is shown again and again that countries with fewer guns (outside law enforcements and military) often have fewer crimes ending badly or with death. And the public in those countries also often feel safer in general and fear gun related crime less.

[Jaxi]

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.

Depends on where you are. As has been stated a million times over, even if the risk is minimal, I will not take the chance with my family's safety in my house. No. Never. It is an extremely irresponsible notion and incredibly naive to plan your family's safety around the belief that the criminal inside your house is not there to harm you. Maybe he is, maybe he is not, I'm not taking a chance. I'll shoot him (with my flare gun) and regret nothing.

[Flaks]

The constitution didn't have adaptive measures to keep up with a changing/evolving society. Gun control should no longer be gun control as much as gun prohibition.

[MyDisciple]

Thankfully in most places in this country there is no duty to retreat when in your home. Our government recognizes that it's a natural right to be secure in your abode. Which interestingly is an idea that precedes the US. You want to waive that right and leave during a home invasion, be my guest. The notion that we should just have to put up with criminals terrorizing people where they should feel most secure is pretty disturbing really. I also don't understand the idea that people put that much value into criminals. I think for the most part they're entitled to the same rights I am, but they waive those rights when they start stepping on mine. This seems pretty fair to me.

Criminals are a burden though, they take our stuff, kill and rape our neighbors and sell our kids drugs. Then when we catch them we have to pay for their room and board and the burden they put on the justice system. Needless to say, I don't lose any sleep when a criminal dies while committing a crime. Though that's not to say I jump for joy either.

[Paranoid Android]

incorrect.. getting drunk and running over someone is the easiest and most efficient way to kill someone.. here in Washington state the penalty for that is only 24-48 months in prison.. shooting someone to death is at least 72...

Great comeback genius. We are keeping this conversation in the contest of owning guns. That's what the topic is about. Please don't go off topic with something not related to guns. Also people who buy/drive a car are not using this as a weapon. The reason why prison sentences are less is because most of the time you are not intentionally gettin in you vehicle to kill someone.

Again I put context of "most efficient" in terms of a weapon. I can't believe people are trying to argue that knives are just as deadly (go as a trauma or E.R. surgeon) and bombs (again bombs are illegal from the start).

[MyDisciple]

A car is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun or a knife. Guns are already illegal for criminals to own.

[Paranoid Android]

A car is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun or a knife. Guns are already illegal for criminals to own.

So is a lion but most people don't use a lion as a weapon. Luz. Yeah guns are illegal for criminals to own but how do criminals get them? They dont sit and wish for them and the gun fairy appears. They are acquired most of the time by two ways. 1) They are actually stolen from legal gun owners and 2) Middlemen and sometimes legal gun owners who purchase legal guns either through wholesale (gun dealer) or buy from a gun dealer (middleman) then sell them to the criminal. So having a more strict gun law or as post states never own a gun would greatly reduce. I'll admit it won't stop criminals gettin hold of guns completely nothing never will.

[MyDisciple]

So is a lion but most people don't use a lion as a weapon. Luz. Yeah guns are illegal for criminals to own but how do criminals get them? They dont sit and wish for them and the gun fairy appears. They are acquired most of the time by two ways. 1) They are actually stolen from legal gun owners and 2) Middlemen and sometimes legal gun owners who purchase legal guns either through wholesale (gun dealer) or buy from a gun dealer (middleman) then sell them to the criminal. So having a more strict gun law or as post states never own a gun would greatly reduce. I'll admit it won't stop criminals gettin hold of guns completely nothing never will.

Then push for more people owning gun safes and enforcement on existing laws that prohibit the sale of guns to a felon.

[Seegtease]

The constitution didn't have adaptive measures to keep up with a changing/evolving society. Gun control should no longer be gun control as much as gun prohibition.

What exactly do you mean by this?

[ranerr]

Though this would probably be how the case was a lot of years ago and I would reckon some time in the future, I don't actually see it working quite well with the current setup we have now.

People just seem to be too attach and emotional at times that making these things available to them would rather cause much problems that help the system. But that is just my opinion.

[Tychoblu]

Don't see the need for hand guns. Home defense/hunting = shotgun/rifle. If you have the need to hide your gun, then you probably shouldn't have it.

[Jaxi]

What exactly do you mean by this?

He is calling the second amendment outdated.

[Seegtease]

He is calling the second amendment outdated.

lol, he can't be saying that. We're probably more likely now for a government to become what the forefathers wished to prevent than we ever were before.

[Jaxi]

lol, he can't be saying that. We're probably more likely now for a government to become what the forefathers wished to prevent than we ever were before.

I sure don't agree with him. I don't know who said this, but I think it is relevant:
"Your rights are your security. When you, 'give up your rights for security, it's not security you get, but slavery."

[Seegtease]

I sure don't agree with him. I don't know who said this, but I think it is relevant:
"Your rights are your security. When you, 'give up your rights for security, it's not security you get, but slavery."

Sounds like good ol' Ben Franklin to me. I knew we put him on our $100 bill for a reason.

[Tasttey]

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

Hell, quite commonly they're used to threaten or intimidate someone into acquiescing to the wielders desires.

A simple example would be concept of armed robbery. The suspect brandishing a gun walks up to you on the street, demands your wallet, cell phone, keys, etc. You, fearing for your life, hand over your valuables and the suspect flees the scene.

The reason I used the simple street mugging as an example is because it is the most common type of robbery within the US, accounting for 43% of all robberies in 2009. (the most recent data I could acquire)

For those who talk about the chances of an armed robber entering your home I'm going to throw some number at you, bear with me this is US data, as it is my home country and the easiest for me to find all the statistics I was looking for.

Once again we go back to 2009 since its the one year I can find all these coinciding figures.

First off, the definition of Robbery per the US Department of Justice:

Robbery is the completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon, and with or without injury.

408,742 Robberies committed in the US
16% Percentage of Robberies committed within a persons residence

Which means in 2009 65,399 robberies were committed in someone's home in 2009 in the US.

48% Percentage of robberies in which a weapon was used
27% Percentage of robberies in which a firearm was used

Now, if we carry the percentages down that means that 17,657 robberies committed in someone's personal residence involved the use of a firearm in 2009.

Now in 2010 (sorry they only do the census every 10 years) there were 131,704,730 households within the US.

Statistically speaking, the average household in the US has a .013% chance of being robbed by someone with firearm. Which is only slightly higher than your chances of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, approximately .01% chance.

Sources:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.html
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
http://www.bancrime.com/articles/us-robbery-statistics
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

That being said I do own a number of firearms, and while I hope I never have to use it, I do have one specifically for the concept of home defense. Its loaded and resides either in the locked gun safe when we're out or by my nightstand when we're in bed.

Its a 410 gauge side by side (for those unfamiliar with it, its the smallest bore shotgun, double barrel) left barrel's loaded with bird shot for that 19% that would rob me with a weapon other than a gun, right barrel's solid slug, for those who show up packing heat. Unfortunately, I'm a very sound sleeper and my girlfriends more likely to meet them with her Ruger loaded with .357 frangibles.

[kleinlax21]

I sure don't agree with him. I don't know who said this, but I think it is relevant:
"Your rights are your security. When you, 'give up your rights for security, it's not security you get, but slavery."

True that. Here's another good one:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2012-05-02 at 12:03 AM ----------

16% Percentage of Robberies committed within a persons residence

Wow, this really struck me as a surprising figure. I am really shocked this number is as low as it is, but I guess it makes sense to ambush somebody walking on the street or in their car, as opposed to in somebody's home where a full gun case may or may not be located. Interesting.

Definitely all the more reason to get a CHL when I hit the big 21.