Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Arledrian: Can anybody help me clarify something I've been thinking over lately? Is it true that because it's written in the Constitution that every American is allowed to own a firearm, they don't change the gun laws in the States?

No, it's because a lot of people with tons of cash are paying them not to change the laws.[/QUOTE]Neb, that's hardly true! I'm not a gun enthusiast, don't own one, don't plan to. The Constitution of the United States doesn't get changed by a few sneezes, it is a major endeavor and saying that someone pays to keep it from changing is a bit oversimplified. [img]smile.gif[/img]

There are many law abiding people who, for whatever reason, don't wish to change those rights. And RIGHTS is what this is about, not laws. The Constitution guarantees the right. Laws come and go and will change or not depending on the voting population, but the fundamental rights aren't removed so easily.

[Bruce The Aussie]

All i can say is
"Guns don't kill people, that little piece of metal punchering their vital organs kills people" [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by SSJ4Sephiroth: Has anybody in here ever heard the phrase "violence isn't the answer"? If you're stopped on the street, why can't you just run? You don't have to pull a gun out and shoot the person, just run. There are solutions other to fighting, or even killing, if you stop to think about it. I understand that in some situations it's not plausible though. In that case, there are still solutions other than a firearm. Like Neb said, a stungun or pepper spray work just as well at repelling attackers and they won't kill a person.

That's like saying food isn't the answer to hunger. Violence isn't the answer to a non-violent problem. There are precious few others to a violent one. Most criminals make sure you CAN'T run from them. How are they going to rob or rape someone if they leave them free to run? Stun guns might scare off bullies. Pepper spray is a good alternative, as long as the attacker isn't armed. Other than that, you have the choice of defending yourself in kind or getting rolled over. It's that simple.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Horatio: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Let me rephrase that comment. "Properly locked" is much better. A loaded gun should be in the immediate possession of a responsible adult! A properly stored gun around children would be unloaded and in a steel gun safe with a secure combination lock. Putting the cable lock on the gun wouldn't be a bad idea either. A loaded gun on a high shelf in a breadbox is NOT properly secured!

Yes, but then if someone is in your house and you have to go hunting round for the trigger, bullets and handle of a gun, what is the point of having one in the first place? I am against them.[/QUOTE]That's not true. When I'm there, it's on me! When I can't carry, off to the safe it goes!

[ 04-30-2002, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

Throughout history dictators and tyrants have always attempted to enforce their rule and solidify their power by disarming the civilian population. The Nazis gun control legislation prevented what could have effective opposition to their Dictatorial rule, for example they went our of their way to endsure that no jews could get weapons.
I’m not saying that misrule by a government here in the west is particularly likely, but as Germany has shown it can happen. If you take away the right to bear and use firearms, you place civilians at the mercy of the army/police or whatever would be dictators may use to enforce their rule.
The key is not to stop people from owning guns; it is to promote safe and responsible ownership of them. Since without guns you have no effective method of self-defence, if guns are outlawed it follows that only outlaws will have guns.
This empowers those criminals who would trample on our rights and ultimately people like Hitler, as we cannot resist them on equal terms.
One human right is equality, A gun also brings a certain Measure of equality to self defence, You don’t need to be big or strong, all you need to do is to be prepared to train and practice.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed"
-Noah Webster

[SSJ4Sephiroth]

Keynth, a gun is not the only way to defend oneself from an armed attacker. If you've ever felt a stungun, you'd know that it would work on a lot more than bullies, it's an electrical current capable of disabling a person for a couple of minutes. And if you think that pepper spray is ineffective against unarmed people, you ever try aiming a gun while blinded? Also if you think it won't hurt, ask the people who were at the Seattle Riots in '99. They know that pepper spray hurts, I'm sure.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Throughout history dictators and tyrants have always attempted to enforce their rule and solidify their power by disarming the civilian population. The Nazis gun control legislation prevented what could have effective opposition to their Dictatorial rule, for example they went our of their way to endsure that no jews could get weapons. I’m not saying that misrule by a government here in the west is particularly likely, but as Germany has shown it can happen. If you take away the right to bear and use firearms, you place civilians at the mercy of the army/police or whatever would be dictators may use to enforce their rule. The key is not to stop people from owning guns; it is to promote safe and responsible ownership of them. Since without guns you have no effective method of self-defence, if guns are outlawed it follows that only outlaws will have guns. This empowers those criminals who would trample on our rights and ultimately people like Hitler, as we cannot resist them on equal terms. One human right is equality, A gun also brings a certain Measure of equality to self defence, You don’t need to be big or strong, all you need to do is to be prepared to train and practice. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" -Noah Webster

Ahhh, the sweet sound of my opinion!

[Elif Godson]

And on a side note, I have done some security work that has put me in situations I deffinetly prefferd not to be in. At the level I was at I could only carry pepper spray or foam, (which really burn's the eye's) this stuff is a life saver if you can get close enough to them. I had a job out at a resort, I was patrolling through the golf course (which is located on a nature preserve) and noticed a out on the water. I shined my flash light out on them and yelled out if everything was okay (by the way no was supposed to be out on this body of water) and they responded by firing at me with a shot gun, fortunatley for me they werent trying to kill me because I would be dead, instead they shot my patrol cart and spun there boat off into the night. I was able to radio it in and they were caught, but it was still a very scary situation, Now I dont know if having a firearm at my side would have made any differnce that night, maybe I would have shot them or they me, but for the few minuet's I lay on the ground behind my cart I would have felt a heck of a lot safer knowing that if they came after me I could have protected myself better.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by SSJ4Sephiroth: Keynth, a gun is not the only way to defend oneself from an armed attacker. If you've ever felt a stungun, you'd know that it would work on a lot more than bullies, it's an electrical current capable of disabling a person for a couple of minutes. And if you think that pepper spray is ineffective against unarmed people, you ever try aiming a gun while blinded? Also if you think it won't hurt, ask the people who were at the Seattle Riots in '99. They know that pepper spray hurts, I'm sure.

I already admitted pepper spray is a decent alternative. I carry that in places you can't have a gun. I'm just not willing to bet MY life or my loved ones welfare on pepper spray against an armed assailant when I could have my glock. I don't know exactly how well an assailant could aim partially blinded, but I'm sure it's still better than if they were on the ground finding the afterlife. As far as stun guns go, I HAVE felt them. I bought one and had someone test it out on me. A full five seconds in the belly with a 100,000 volt gun. I had to know if it worked. It hurt like living hell but hardly had me on the ground knocked out or writhing in agony. A little weakened at most. Granted I am a rather large man, but I wasn't impressed. My advice if you carry one of these is to go for the groin or the neck. I'm sure the professional batons are much more effective. I havn't seen any of those for sale, have you? I'm sure they also carry an equally shocking price tag if you did find one. They also look to be the size of a bulky compact umbrella, only much heavier I'm sure, from the big batteries. A stun gun is also completely worthless against a lethally armed assailant.

[ 04-30-2002, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Thoran]

"Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security, deserve neither liberty nor security."
- Benjamin Franklin

I believe that the security that many hope to buy with gun control is an illusion. European countries with VERY strict gun control laws are finding that their people are DEFENSELESS against criminals who have NO difficulty acquireing firearms.

New York has for many years had one of the strictest handgun laws in the country... yet crimes committed by handguns are as common as elsewhere.

If by some miracle ALL the guns could be taken away from peope it would still not change the ability of a criminal to find unique ways of destroying lives... they would just not be gun related.

Maybe swords would see a comeback or bows, or the sale of fertalizer and diesel fuel would skyrocket... or any of a million other ways to hurt an maim.

Taking something away from the law abiding population is NOT going to slow down the criminal... because they aren't too worried about laws in the first place. All it will do is make thier lives EASIER, because they'll know that when they break into YOUR house, you will have no way to defend yourself. In cities where a high percentage of the population owns firearms the rate of illegal entry crimes is significantly lower.

Regarding firearms and children. My father gave me my first .22 when I was 6 years old. Until I was 14 I was never allowed to shoot it without adult supervision, but my father took me out regularly to target shoot... to teach me how to hold a gun, how to set up a proper target area, what to do and what not to do. He especially taught me what a gun could do, and that kind of demonstration does sink in (even into a thick head like mine).

You can't protect your children from guns by pretending they don't exist.
You can't protect your children from guns by telling them to run if they see one (that'll just make many of them more curious)
You can't follow your kids to every friends house and make sure THEY don't have guns.

The only thing you can do that will help to protect your children is to give them the tools they need to REALLY understand the implications of a gun in their presence. To know that when a kid wanders out of his fathers bedroom waving a handgun around that he's putting everyone in immediate danger... even if he says it's not loaded. The best security for your child is to have them visualize an apple blowing up when they see the end of a barrel. And to have YOUR voice echoing in their head with a million rules of handling a firearm... and all the time they'll be saying to themselves "this guy might be my friend, but he's breaking all the rules of handling a gun". Then need to feel an unease that just lecturing CAN'T instill.

I don't know that I've got the right attitude... or what the right attitude really IS, but this has worked for myself and my family.
-My children don't have TOY guns.
-If I see one of my boys playing with something like it was a gun (stick, lego handmade gun, etc...), he's automatically required to treat that thing with the same respect as if it were a real gun.
-Both my boys have shot, and both of them get constant reinforcement from myself and my wife regarding the proper way to deal with firearms.
-I would never keep a loaded weapon in the house.
-I personally don't own handguns, and my kids have not shot them, but they've been around them and have been taught proper precautions when dealing with them.

In the end there's no guarantees, but I prefer to err on the side of providing my kids with as much information as possible... and hopefully then they will be able to assess a situation from a position of knowledge.

As far as carrying a gun in public... I just don't think it's necessary for daily life... jmo. If I lived in a dangerous area that might change but I live in the country, and I've never had a problem that the baseball bat under the seat couldn't handle.

[ 04-30-2002, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]