Is it better to carry a gun or not?

[Epona]

Originally posted by Neb: I like your stance on this issue Epona [img]smile.gif[/img] Somewhat like mine. And thank God that you managed to get rid of that guy that broke into your room!

My point being really (I never actually seem to make a point in my posts though, do I?) is that if I hadn't been prepared to defend myself in a violent manner I could have been raped or murdered or both.

If I'd had a gun and shot that mofo dead where he stood, the gun-death statistics in the UK would have been up by one - if I'd killed him with the lamp base (and I sure as hell intended to, it was damn heavy), then the murder statistics would have been up by one - if I'd done nothing, then the violent crime & possibly murder statistics would have been up by one - but *I* would have been that statistic - and I know which of those options I would prefer. Better to have one dead psycho than let that happen to me.

Incidentally, I keep a large hammer handy in case anything like that ever happens to me again, and yes, I would try to kill with it without any hesitation. That makes me no better or worse than anyone who keeps a gun at the ready IMO.

[ 05-02-2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Epona ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I've said it before, and I'll say it again with the hopes someone will want to hear it. YOU CARRY THE GUN ON YOUR PERSON AT ALL TIMES! When it is not possible to carry the gun for any reason, THEN it is locked up. IF THE GUN IS IN YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTROL THEN KIDS CAN'T GET IT AND YOU CAN USE IT IN A PINCH! Is the concept understood now?

So, that means that if you're asleep and someone breaks into your house you've slept with the gun in your hand? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Sorry Sir K, but in that case your idea doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Yes! Right next to you Neb! That's where it should be. Within reach an in your control, even when you're asleep. Why do you have a hard time believing this? Where's the problem?[/QUOTE]Isn't that a big dangerous? Having the gun so close to you when you're sleeping...? I know how I am when I wake up; I hardly know where I am. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
And there have been accidents with guns that happened because people woke up, were sleepy, and grabbed the gun. A woman shot herself in the head because she thought the gun was her inhaler (she had asthma). So I don't think that having the gun so close to where you sleep is such a good idea...

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Precisely Epona, in the serious situations, chances are only one person will come out alive, and if they attacked first, you have to fight with all you have (unless of course you can take the safer option and run away, but unfortunately in some cases this is impossible) until you can get out of there alive.

[Epona]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Precisely Epona, in the serious situations, chances are only one person will come out alive, and if they attacked first, you have to fight with all you have (unless of course you can take the safer option and run away, but unfortunately in some cases this is impossible) until you can get out of there alive.

Which, thinking about it, leads me to the conclusion that since I live in a violent area of London where many of the psychos are running round tooled up - then if I could legally obtain a gun, it would be best to have one provided I learned how to use it properly.

This thread is a great discussion - and I've actually come to a conclusion that I didn't start out with as a result. [img]smile.gif[/img] That doesn't happen often!

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: I've said it before, and I'll say it again with the hopes someone will want to hear it. YOU CARRY THE GUN ON YOUR PERSON AT ALL TIMES! When it is not possible to carry the gun for any reason, THEN it is locked up. IF THE GUN IS IN YOUR IMMEDIATE CONTROL THEN KIDS CAN'T GET IT AND YOU CAN USE IT IN A PINCH! Is the concept understood now?

So, that means that if you're asleep and someone breaks into your house you've slept with the gun in your hand? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Sorry Sir K, but in that case your idea doesn't work.[/QUOTE]Yes! Right next to you Neb! That's where it should be. Within reach an in your control, even when you're asleep. Why do you have a hard time believing this? Where's the problem?[/QUOTE]Isn't that a big dangerous? Having the gun so close to you when you're sleeping...? I know how I am when I wake up; I hardly know where I am. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
And there have been accidents with guns that happened because people woke up, were sleepy, and grabbed the gun. A woman shot herself in the head because she thought the gun was her inhaler (she had asthma). So I don't think that having the gun so close to where you sleep is such a good idea...[/QUOTE]Not I. I'm up in a moments notice and at full mental faculties in seconds. Any unusual sound will wake me up, even if it's soft. I remember one time I was babysitting. The child woke up in the middle of the night disoriented (possibly sleepwalking) and for some reason was urinating on the entertainment center in the living room. Apparently, he was dreaming that he was in the bathroom. He had scarcely started when the tinkling noise woke me and I was able to guide him to the bathroom and let him finish. Although an amusing story, the point is that I am easily awoken by unusual sounds or lights at night. I'm not sure why. It's probably the military background and combat experience. Of course, enough bourbon will change all that . In those cases the gun stays put away though. I don't mix firearms and alchohol any more than I do alchohol and driving. I feel a deadly weapon requires a clear head to handle.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Epona: This thread is a great discussion - and I've actually come to a conclusion that I didn't start out with as a result. [img]smile.gif[/img] That doesn't happen often!

And that just goes to show the benefit of these discussions.
It's a pity the area you live in is so dangerous, but hey, c'est la vie.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: quote: Originally posted by Alexander: quote: Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: Another thought. Should a bad turn occur in our government, does the army take orders from you and your neighbors? The occurance is unlikely, I agree. But who should be there to stop it if they render the populus impotent by disarmament and the removing of the constitutional rights? Bad regimes ALWAYS start with actions of this sort. The first thing Hitler did was collect up all the guns!

Sir Kenyth, that is the biggest myth that the gun lovers like to tell. Hitler never confiscated everyone's weapons, and I would like to see you back up your claim.

Second, if the government does decide to suddenly take over, with help from the military, what good is your pea-shooter or shotgun going to do against helicopters, tanks, cruise missiles, etc.? Not a bit of good.[/QUOTE]He didn't disarm the common populus? They confiscated and burned books but not weapons? Are you serious? I'm sure the upper crust still had weapons but the oppressed peoples were unarmed I'm sure. I read testomonials from surviving Jews from unbiased sites. Where did you get your myth info?[/QUOTE]Dead serious, and I got it from here.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html

The pea shooters can impede a lot more than you think. The Viet Cong used them and simple bombs quite effectively. Don't you think?

That was not the only reason we lost Vietnam, and you know it. Vietnam had a jungle terrain which our soldiers had great difficulty navigating through (I know, I was there), not to mention the fact that it didn't take very long for almost the entire country to be against Johnson's half-a$$ed approach.

I'm sure that if the US military were to initiate a complete takeover of the entire country with full force, they could easily subdue the general population, regardless of whether or not pistols and rifles are in the hands of the people. As I said earlier, the US military has tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and heavy artillery that could easily wipe out the population.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Alexander:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html

That was not the only reason we lost Vietnam, and you know it. Vietnam had a jungle terrain which our soldiers had great difficulty navigating through (I know, I was there), not to mention the fact that it didn't take very long for almost the entire country to be against Johnson's half-a$$ed approach. I'm sure that if the US military were to initiate a complete takeover of the entire country with full force, they could easily subdue the general population, regardless of whether or not pistols and rifles are in the hands of the people. As I said earlier, the US military has tanks, helicopters, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and heavy artillery that could easily wipe out the population.

Ummmmm..... Here's a quote from your own site.

"The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power." In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."

The point isn't so much in the specifics as much as the simple fact that the Nazis didn't want firearms in the hands of the oppressed people. How does it matter exactly how they did it?

As far as the other thing. That was just making a point of the possible effectiveness of small arms. Who says what motivated people could or could not do with them here? The military would never be close to full force during an attempted takeover either. Civil wars are just like that. That's not the way things would happen anyhow. The point is nobody is going to try and seriously change our method of government unless they're sure that it would be fairly quick and easy with a minimum of damage. An easily controlled populus assures that. A long, slow change to another form of government is what would happen. The slow inevitable snowball of lost rights will just keep on going once started. A few hundred years can hold a lot of slow change. If you allow 2nd amendment rights to go, free speech will be the next one to be worked on. It's half impotent already from civil suit worry. After that, it's all over for the common man. Taking over by destroying everything isn't a profitable option. If that was the best way, why didn't the Nazis just bomb the Jews and run them down with tanks? Because it would have made a mess in their own nest, that's why!

[Thoran]

[URL=http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlergun.html]

Very interesting web site... I was struck by the statement along the lines of "if the jews were armed like americans then Germany would have lost much of their army trying to subdue them"

6 million Jews were killed, if only 10% had been armed that would have been a 600,000 strong armed resistance... certainly something to contend with. At it's peak Germany fielded about 10 million men, so a 10-20% hit to their manpower due to internal insurrections would have hurt for sure. It's interesting to note that both the US and USSR had peak strenth of close to 13 million men each. Every time I do research on WW2 i'm blown away by the sheer SIZE of the confrontation... 70 million combatants, 60 million dead. I just hope that never happens again.

[Alexander]

Well, I addressed the issue at hand, and that is that Hitler did not ban gun ownership, it was done before he got there.

Plus, I would not like to see the 2nd amendment repealed, and I don't know where you got that idea.