Related Information to Having A Gun In The House

Having A Gun In The House - Page 9

I don't believe anybody has the right to use violence to hurt other people. That doesn't mean we don't ever do it when we feel there are no other alternatives. But I think it is an extreme situation where you know you have to kill or be killed.

I get the impression by this debate that break and enters, and other crimes are very common in the US. I can't quite understand why everyone is so scared of being robbed, attacked or murdered? Has this happened to anyone here before? I sincerely hope not.

In Australia it is illegal to shoot someone even in self defence. Normally if it is in self defence it is a maximum of manslaughter, but of course a trial could water that down.

So I think the laws in your country are quite different to mine. And because I have grown up in this environment, my opinion on using violence is different.

I've met quite a few criminals and I know how dangerous they can be. I'm also trained to fight myself, used to compete in kick boxing. But I can honestly say I would never feel comfortable attacking a criminal or anyone even If I thought I could beat them. I would prefer to avoid violence whenever possible instead of condemning people to instant death. And I am totally against guns, I think they are for cowards. This is all irrelevant to my argument because we are talking about an extreme example which has never happened to me.

I'm going to shy away from extreme what ifs to illustrate my point.

My opposition to legalised guns is based on one very simple, and undisputable fact I posted on another topic:

This is undeniable evidence that legalised guns means more gun deaths. I can not understand why you would want to legalise a weapon that will lead to more deaths. I certainly don't want Australia to jump from 1 in 350,000 to 1 in 25,000. That would probably make me as fearful of being attacked as some of the fear I sense from other posts.

If guns are killing more U.S. teens aged 15-19 than natural causes. Or if they kill more people in two years than Vietnam War did in 8, I can totally understand why you guys feel the need to use a firearm for protection. That is frightening.

Perhaps our difference of opinion has more to do with our different environments?

House The Gun Having

Yes, several times (well, not murdered, of course ). I've had vehicles stolen or broken into; twice that I can remember my house has been broken into and burglarized; and I've been physically attacked a couple of times. I've never owned or carried a gun, but I can tell you it would have made a world of difference in those attacks!

There are now what are known as "home-invasion robberies" where criminals actually follow you home and then force into your house (generally at gun point). Crime and the varieties of crime, and the degree of violence involved in crime is getting worse all the time.

That was my next question to you: have you personally ever been threatened at gun point? If not, you can't say what your response will be. Have you ever had your child threatened? If not, you can't say what your response will be. You can't dictate to me how to respond to the threat of violence if you or your loved ones have never been threatened; that is a deeply personal decision, with legal and moral ramifications that lawmakers and philosophers have debated for decades, if not centuries.

Having A Gun In The House History & Civil Business Politics

Farseer, I am sorry to hear you have had so many bad experiences. I now understand why you have such fear and I apologise for not taking this into consideration in earlier posts.

I have only had one B&E and I was not home when it happened.

I have not been held up at gun point. But I have had a couple of violent incidences, one where I was attacked by an Asian triad with machettes. I was lucky to get out of that one alive. I know very well what it is like to be threatened with violence.

But I'm not trying to dictate to anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Personally I would never use a gun. If I was held up at gun point I would still be too afraid to use a gun.

But my opposition to gun laws has been clearly expressed in earlier posts. It's about making society a safer place. And I think the sheer volume of gun related deaths and injuries in the US illustrates that legalised guns makes the US a more dangerous place.

Page 9 House The Gun Having

CANADA BLAMES U.S. FOR GUN VIOLENCE

Canadian officials, seeking to make sense of another fatal shooting in what has been a record year for gun-related deaths, said Tuesday that along with a host of social ills, part of the problem stemmed from what they said was the United States exporting its violence.
Ref.https://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/27/canada.crime.ap/index.html

House The Gun Having

For me having a gun in the house is a good idea for:

1. Defense of myself, my family, and my home.

2. Defense of my freedom from oppressive government. (I have heard it said that the reason for the Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights is to give the people the real power to keep the other rights).

3. Survival situation where hunting may be required.


I like guns. They are fascinating to me from a self-defense as an engineering points of view. Perhaps the above are simply rationalizations.

We all have our rationalizations and they are difficult to change. Many can quote various statistics for and against. I think that the more unbiased statistics indicate a benefit of a society when guns are allowed in the hands of the people. Yes, there will be innocent deaths - but that is true of ANYTHING we do. I don't think every law abiding citizen MUST have a gun, but I think any society that claims to be FREE they should be ALLOWED to have one.


Ask yourself:
Do you honestly believe that the holocaust actually would have happened if the Jews and other victims would have had even ONE gun with a little ammo per FAMILY?

Should cars be outlawed to eliminate the thousands of automotive deaths each year?

Having A Gun In The House

Martin, do you feel the need to defend yourself from your government?

I would respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the statistics. It's been clearly established in earlier posts that the US has the highest level of gun-related deaths per capita of any developed country. And it is the highest by far.

I fail to see how family's owning a few handguns would protect them from the German invaders? I think this a touch dis-respectful to suggest it was that easy to prevent the holocaust.

This crime against humanity was committed by one of the world's most powerful army's at that time, led by a lunatic. Hand guns would not have made a difference.

Cars weren't created to kill people. Guns were. You can't compare cars to guns, they serve completely different purposes. You can drive a car a thousand times and it won't kill anyone. There's a good chance you can use a gun once and somebody will die. Human error causes car-related deaths, human skill causes gun deaths. The whole point of a wepon is to hurt or kill.

Should we allow people to keep other weapons like bombs, grenades, rocket-launchers, etc, to protect themselves? Where do you stop with this argument?

Edited: arvhic on 21st Feb, 2006 - 5:57am

Having Gun The House - Page 9

arvhic,

We are on opposite ends of this argument and rationalizations on either side will not likely change our minds - as I implied in my post.

I am not "feel the need to defend myself from my government" as you put it. However, the "right to keep and bear arms" in the US Constitution helps prevent the implementation of a totalitarian regime whether from inside our own system of government or from outsiders as a last line of defense when everything else has broken down.

As for my idea that having a gun in each families home would have prevented or minimized the holocaust, I am certain. Are you familiar with the Jewish resistance in Warsaw where a relatively small number of civilians with smuggled in small arms were used to fight off the Germans for 28 days - if they had more support they could have lasted longer. One of the "worlds most powerful armys of the world at the time" WAS afraid of a few people with small arms.
https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/warsaw.htm

As for crime prevention, criminals in jail have specifically listed a major reason for not selecting a victim was the possibility that they had a firearm. They are afraid of armed victims.

In my humble opinion, part of your bias against firearms appears to be your claim in another post to the effect of "violence should never be used against another person". I respectfully think that violence is an essential OPTION against someone who is attacking you, your family, or your way of life. In the case of self defense, a handgun is the single most effective means of minimizing personal injury - in the vast majority of the cases, a crime is deterred without a shot being fired.
https://www.nraila.org/media/misc/ACCC.htm

The following is copied from a compilation of "Nine Myths of Gun Control":
https://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyt...m#*%20Myth%20#1

"* Myth #1 "Guns are only used for killing"
Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2] "


As for my comparing firearm related deaths to automotive related deaths I was simply pointing out that if you really cared about saving lives you would support eliminating cars since automotive accidents are currently the number one cause of accidental death in the US. If you want to minimize accidental deaths, your logic implies that eliminating would eliminate those deaths. What a device is designed for is totally irrelevant, In my humble opinion.

My point is that it seems that you really don't care about actual deaths, but you are biased against SPECIFICALLY against firearms related deaths.


As for other weapons, I'll admit that I'm against legalizing military explosives or larger.

Having Gun The House Politics Business Civil & History - Page 9

Hi Martin,

I disagree that warding off the invading Germans was as simple as more families owning firearms. There are plenty examples of brave resistance in WWII, but the reality is the Germans and their allies successfully invaded and controlled most of Europe. If whole countries and their militaries fell to this army, then there is no chance small communities could have fought them off with a few more handguns.

Criminals may have listed fear of firearms as a deterrent. But this fear is obviously perpetuated in the rest of American society, otherwise people wouldn't feel the need to own guns. Now if guns were illegal, as they are in most of the developed world, there would be less fear of gun-related violence and fear. Isn't that the society you would prefer to live in?

Are you suggesting that by everyone owning guns it reduces the rate of crime or death?

I don't believe you ever solve anything with violence. I don't believe for one second that handguns save 65 lives for every one they kill. That is an imaginary statistic that can not be qualified. How do you know a criminal wants to kill someone? How can you measure intent? And does shooting and hurting criminals in self defence, regardless if they shoot first, ever count in these stats? There seems to be this disturbing fear that all criminals want to kill their victims. I can tell you from years of experience covering police rounds this is simply not true.

You are getting your information and statistics from a gun lobby with a vested interest in promoting handgun use. I simply don't accept this source as reliable.

Mt whole argument is that making firearms illegal minimises death. Compare the amount of deaths by firearm in the US per capita with deaths by crime per capita in any other developed country. That will tell you a story. The figures are in earlier posts.

This whole comparison between cars and guns is nonsense. By definition it is very difficult to prevent accidental death regardless of what kills someone. Most gun deaths are not accidents. Guns are weapons designed to kill people. Cars are machines designed to convey people. How can you compare the two?

I believe people should be taught to drive more responsibly and with a higher skill level. This would save lives. But even when you teach people to use guns responsibly, the whole purpose of using a gun in self-defence is to hurt people. Criminals are also people.