Should guns be used for self defense?

[jennymae]

Hi Kimmie, I'd just like to build on that. I'm not arguing the point here, just adding info. A lot of people (myself included) have been confused as to what an "assault weapon" actually is. It turns out, many "assault weapons" are used for hunting, and in many cases there is no major distinction between a regular hunting rifle and an assault weapon.

First of all, we are NOT talking about the assault RIFLE. Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Assault rifles are effectively banned in America. You can own one after going through a long process, but they are very very expensive. So expensive no criminal with a basic grasp of economics would try to get one to use in a crime. Most criminals use handguns to commit their crimes.

Next, the "assault weapon" classification is vague, and can vary from state to state. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about:

So it's not that I object to your point, I think you have an excellent point about people needing training before being allowed to carry. I just cringe every time I hear "Assault weapon", because the legislators have turned it into a festival of anti-logic. Here's one more for the road:

There is no practical difference between the two weapons, except for the fact that the lower one is probably more accurate, due to the longer barrel. But the upper one looks frightening compared to the classic hunting rifle look of the lower one, therefore they slap the "assault weapon" distinction onto it.

Oh well, I 've got an alternative viewpoint. The one banned is a real ugly gun. The design is terrible, the color is awful and on the whole it looks like a something you'd need for your trailer or your daily assault. Yep, I can see why they banned it. On the other hand, the Springfield M1A is more to the eye, it gives you the impression of wildlife and hunting, a bonfire, a lovely sunset and white tails all over the place. Yep, I can see why they didnt ban this one.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You are correct that criminals do not go through lengthy expensive bureaucracies to get their assault weapons. What they do is buy them cheap from China (the 2nd largest gun manufacturer in the world) or modify existing firearms into fully automatic assault weapons. The laws affect the law abiding non-criminal population.

The Chinese assault rifles cost next to nothing and the People's Republic of China has tens of millions of them to sell. They range between $80 to $300 with the Soviet-designed, Chinese-made SKS and MAK-90 assault rifles the most popular.

The cartels, street gangs, and criminal organizations all have access to offshore suppliers all over the world, not just China, and smuggle them into the U.S. to facilitate their criminal activities. Individual criminals who don't have access to offshore suppliers often simply buy their illegal assault weapons illegally right on the Internet.

Here's a Chinese made AK 47 for about $84.00 USD: example.

Do NOT buy that weapon law abiding citizens.

So expensive no criminal with a basic grasp of economics would try to get one to use in a crime.

 

[JimJimmers]

Here's a Chinese made AK 47 for about $84.00 USD: example.

Do NOT buy that weapon law abiding citizens.

I think that one is a model, non-firing replica. (Not that there aren't AK's available, of course.) But to your point, the black market is still a valid concern. I should have mentioned that fact.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I didn't want to link to a fully functioning AK 47, of course. My point is that there are hundreds of websites one can buy fully functioning AK 47s from.

But understand many of those toy models can be converted to fully operational.

EXCLUSIVE: Toy Gun Sold in U.S. Can Easily be Converted to the Real Thing | Fox News

[video=youtube_share;K33TX-vthUI]http://youtu.be/K33TX-vthUI[/video]


My point is that these laws really affect us law abiding citizens. We never do this and we never buy weapons that are not 100% legal in our area to purchase. We follow the law.

Criminals; however, do not.

So draconian gun control laws make us law abiding citizens LESS safe while criminals are as dangerous as ever. It puts us at a disadvantage.

I support gun safety training, background checks for dangerous felons and the mentally ill, and very simple common sense gun control (regulating minors, etc...). But that's it. We have TOO MUCH gun control now and it makes us vulnerable to the bad guys.

That IS my point.

I think that one is a model, non-firing replica. (Not that there aren't AK's available, of course.) But to your point, the black market is still a valid concern. I should have mentioned that fact.

 

[sanglina]

Here's the big irony-

More innocent people are randomly killed by 'civilians' with guns in the US than in other countries like India or for that matter even UK. The nation that allows its citizens to own gun for self protection are losing their lives at the hands of gun.

The argument that those that killed innocent people with gun have mental issue is I think lame because its not like only the US have people with mental issue. I bet other countries might have equal if not more no. of people with mental issue but we hardly hear 'them' shooting mass no. of innocent people like in the US.

With that said, I have never feared or been scared of any person in my hometown. Other than ghost and wild animals, I had no reason to fear people in my hometown that would prompt me to want to own gun. So, there is no reason to own gun for self protection in my home town. My brothers (back at home) own single barrel guns but they use it only occasionally when they go for hunting wild animals. It was bought for that sole purpose, not for use against human being.

Now, I live in Delhi (consider very unsafe place for women in particular) but it has never occurred to me to own gun for my self-protection. I have lived here in Delhi for almost a decade but by God's grace, nothing untoward has happened to me. For good or bad, I would not trust to rely on gun for protection.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's nice but I live in SoCal and they kill each other like flies here with everything from their bare hands to melee and edged weapons to firearms.

You are projecting your environment on environments that are exactly the opposite of it. We have hundreds of thousands of street gang members plus their numerous associates here and they are very active. We have criminals aplenty, cartels, prison gangs on the street, etc... You name it: it is here.

There IS every reason to own firearms for self defense where I live and know how to properly use and care for them as well as properly and safely store them.

Here's the big irony-

More innocent people are randomly killed by 'civilians' with guns in the US than in other countries like India or for that matter even UK. The nation that allows its citizens to own gun for self protection are losing their lives at the hands of gun.

The argument that those that killed innocent people with gun have mental issue is I think lame because its not like only the US have people with mental issue. I bet other countries might have equal if not more no. of people with mental issue but we hardly hear 'them' shooting mass no. of innocent people like in the US.

With that said, I have never feared or been scared of any person in my hometown. Other than ghost and wild animals, I had no reason to fear people in my hometown that would prompt me to want to own gun. So, there is no reason to own gun for self protection in my home town. My brothers (back at home) own single barrel guns but they use it only occasionally when they go for hunting wild animals. It was bought for that sole purpose, not for use against human being.

Now, I live in Delhi (consider very unsafe place for women in particular) but it has never occurred to me to own gun for my self-protection. I have lived here in Delhi for almost a decade but by God's grace, nothing untoward has happened to me. For good or bad, I would not rely on gun for protection.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That video I posted last was a joke video and the young man sucked me in and I didn't catch it until afterwards. That said, yes it's possible as per the Fox News link.

 

[PapaBear]

Yes! Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Defensive use of guns news stories: Updated often. So ya'all come back and read i

This video always puts a smile on my face.

[video=youtube;5ju4Gla2odw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw[/video]

 

[Plowman]

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And that is the point isn't it. If we truly Loved each other, there would be no need for laws. Whether that be gun control laws or other laws.

I agree that gun control only effects so called law abiding people. I own several guns so obviously I have no problem with others owning guns.
I can even appreciate why some people would feel the need to arm themselves and frankly I have no problem with the average person arming themselves for protection against real or imagined threats.

I am confident that 99% of those people would never shoot an innocent person and should a very small percentage do so, well I think that is preferable to a whole lot of armed criminals, a good many of whom would kill anyone who gets in their way, intentionally of by accident.

However, I would hope it is every believers goal to do no harm to anyone, ever.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Defensive use of guns news stories: Updated often. So ya'all come back and read i

I hate to write a soliloquy, but well-meaning people on the rival thread are making policy pronouncements and so shall I.

Freedom and liberty are precarious things. Human nature being what it is, there will always be death. There will always be economic downturns. There will always be a lack of stewardship, either intentional or unintentional with the use of natural resources.

When a society has freedom and liberty though, people are more prone to associate these natural consequences or rather qualities with the freedom than with human nature. A pond grows dark and the assumption is that it is dark because the government didn't make sure it was clean. A person dies by the shot of a gun and they automatically assume he would not have without an ATF regulation standing between the gunman and the victim.

They flash easily pliable statistics. Comparing one country to another, forgetting the deeper causes. Forgetting too the rough and tumble nature of liberty, not to mention the fact that these numbers are but brief and deceptive snapshots of a much larger sequence.

Yes, it doesn't appear to be an easy ride. But what, ladies and gentleman, is the alternative at the end of the day?

Vulnerability, servitude, and a lack of an acquaintance with the harsh realities of life in an increasingly "safe" and vacuum-sealed world.

This thread is a brilliant thread, but I tell you now the stories posted will be few and far between compared to the other. The media does not want to acknowledge the everyday heroes and some of the everyday heroes and survivors would prefer not to be acknowledged.

A friend of mine who lived near Philadelphia never ended up in the news, but he would have been stabbed to death on more than one occasion if he did not have a sidearm. Another friend of mine was sitting alone in a car and would have likely been killed had he not had his Springfield when a couple bandits decided to pay him a visit.

As for me? Let's just say there is a reason why I carry. My life has probably been saved before because of it too. No shots were fired. I didn't even have to draw.

Again, these are the stories you will never hear. That, my friends, is the confusing nature of liberty rearing its head again.

Yes, myself and other gun owners have the power to seriously injure and possibly kill someone with a squeeze of a finger. We realize the risk in that. We realize that unsavory characters have the power to do so as well. We realize that the picture will never look pretty as long as humans walk the earth.

Yet we choose to do so, because the threats are too great and liberty too precious. The alternative is unconscionable.



Si vis pacem, para bellum.

 

[blue_ladybug]

I think guns should only be used as a last resort. If you have to use the gun, at least give a warning shot into the air first. That may be enough to deter the person and /or scare them off. If you are forced to shoot them, at least shoot them in a part of the body that wont result in death. You always hear that "guns dont kill people, people kill people." That is absolutely true. It is the person's conscious thought to decide to kill or not--the gun is simply the vessel used to carry out that thought.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The perpetrators of criminal violence don't fire warning shots. They are busy doing their best to murder you while you are firing your warning shot.

I'll put one in their leg to get their attention if I'm fortunate enough to clearly get the drop on an armed home invader threatening my life or the life of some innocent person and offer them the opportunity to surrender but that's about it.

If they move to fire on me the second shot is straight to their dome.

Understand; however, that I live a moral life and carefully qualify who I associate with and where I go. Additionally, I show everyone the proper respect and courtesy to people in real life and make an effort to be amicable even when I don't feel like it.

I never peacock or mad dog other people, two immature egotistical juvenile behaviors that can lead to serious problems and if I do find myself in an environment or situation with another not to my liking I simply leave.

As a result of making the right choices with how I live, act, speak, and behave in real life; the odds of an armed criminal and myself crossing paths in a negative way is minimized imho.

Home invasion and robbery are traditionally the two greatest risks for us moral, socialized, law abiding citizens in my view. Lately; however, I'd have to add random violence with all the knockout game garbage going on in public against strangers arising from fatherless males raised by liberals running wild. The liberal politicians that run this country and the liberal media no longer talk about, work toward, or care about building strong, moral, healthy families and it really shows in society with all these young dangerous males running amok.

I'm prepared for the first. Sophisticated home alarm with touch sensors straight to the police department, neighborhood watch, a professionally prepared armed homeowner defense plan strategy by one of the local security companies, and of course a great lawyer.

The second not so much as I don't have a CCW permit and California has made open carry illegal leaving us law abiding citizens disadvantaged against illegally armed criminals outside of our homes. Once the requirement for cause is finally absolved by the Supreme Court, upholding the federal judge's recent ruling, I'll apply for one.

We can carry a stun capability in California but there are requirements and restrictions to doing so. One must be over 18 years of age, not on parole, not under the influence, and the stun taser itself must be stamped with the manufacturers name and a serial #. In California, one cannot carry a stun taser around government property, schools, airports, etc... And if one ever uses a stun taser on another person: expect a civil lawsuit and a criminal investigation by default. Of course, stun guns are useless against an armed criminal.

Criminals follow none of these laws. They just illegally arm themselves and do whatever it is they are going to do... to us law abiding citizens, of course, so we're definitely at a disadvantage should we unhappily find ourselves in a situation with a criminal or criminals outside of our homes. There's not much more we can do about that at the present. Fortunately, most of us law abiding citizens aren't paranoid... lol. The reason for that is because the majority of society is law abiding citizens and that brings us comfort .

I think guns should only be used as a last resort. If you have to use the gun, at least give a warning shot into the air first. That may be enough to deter the person and /or scare them off. If you are forced to shoot them, at least shoot them in a part of the body that wont result in death. You always hear that "guns dont kill people, people kill people." That is absolutely true. It is the person's conscious thought to decide to kill or not--the gun is simply the vessel used to carry out that thought.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

LOL! Great post.

Oh well, I 've got an alternative viewpoint. The one banned is a real ugly gun. The design is terrible, the color is awful and on the whole it looks like a something you'd need for your trailer or your daily assault. Yep, I can see why they banned it. On the other hand, the Springfield M1A is more to the eye, it gives you the impression of wildlife and hunting, a bonfire, a lovely sunset and white tails all over the place. Yep, I can see why they didnt ban this one.

 

[spacefreak]

yes, psalms 144:1 blessed is the lord that strengthens me which teaches my hands to war, and my fingers too fight.

 

[Jhana]

It's fine to say that in a gun-saturated nation, a gun is a sensible means of defense to have. But how can anyone expect gun ownership to dwindle and practically die off if nobody is willing to give their gun up first? The problem will just perpetuate itself. The fact that guns are legal means that this whole debate, this problem itself, will not diminish any.

I understand that it's a scary thought to be unarmed. Of course I do. It's a very difficult problem. But some step has to be made to help it. I think that we could all agree that for things to be left stagnant, as they are, wouldn't do any good.

 

[PoxEclipse]

A Law Built On A Lie?

[video=youtube;Lil51T7UIrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lil51T7UIrc[/video]

 

[Jhana]

Re: A Law Built On A Lie?

[video=youtube;Lil51T7UIrc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lil51T7UIrc[/video]

That's fantastic to prove a point 'n all but it's invalid. I live in NI, guns were banned here and the laws are super harsh on guns. I don't know anyone who owns one and there's 1 or two murders by firearm here per year, in a population of nearly 2 million, with only 13 murders per million people in entirety. That is, hugely lower than the US. We also banned knives.

The US has a knife murder rate per capita over double that of NI, and a gun murder rate that is nearly three times the ENTIRE murder rate per capita in the UK.

In essence, the US has three times as many murders by firearm, per capita, than the UK has any kind of murders, per capita.

I covered this in intricate, referenced statistics from the US Buraeu of Justice, the FBI, the gov.uk (official government of UK) website and the Police Service of NI official release statistics near the beginning of this thread I believe.

Gun control and knife control works in my state.

 

[PoxEclipse]

Statisticalities?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[2] In some jurisdictions, male-female rape is the only form of rape counted in the statistics.[3] The attitude of the police in many countries often discourages victims from reporting rape: one study in Turkey found that 33% of police officers agreed with the assertion that "some women deserve rape" and 66% agreed that "the physical appearance and behaviors of women tempt men to rape."[4]

In many parts of the world, rape is very rarely reported, due to the extreme social stigma cast on women who have been raped, or the fear of being disowned by their families, or subjected to violence, including honor killings.[5] Furthermore, in countries where adultery and/or premarital sex are illegal, victims of rape can face prosecution under these laws, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove a rape in the court. Even if they can prove their rape case, evidence during investigation may surface showing that they were not virgins at the time of the rape, which, if they are unmarried, opens the door for prosecution.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Under-reporting

Under-reporting

According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[8][9]

The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 British government report says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."[10]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_offences_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Jhana, your false assertion has already been refuted. Repeating it only demonstrates that you are in a state of denial and willful ignorance.

The New Government War On U.S. Gun Owners ~ Help Fix America First

Mexico, China, etc... are all nations in large land masses that have extraordinary gun violence even though private gun ownership is outlawed or so strictly controlled that private ownership of firearms capable of adequate self-defense is practically nil.

All you are doing is depriving people of their human right to self-defense against armed criminals which makes you morally complicit in their victimization (e.g. murder, maiming, robbery, etc...).

You're a perpetrator of criminality because you ensure that people are unable to defend themselves against criminals who always have access to firearms which, as has been shown to you in this thread, are easily made from completely benign parts obtainable from any local hardware store.

If forced to make a choice, it is better to deprive you of any legal right to assist criminals by outlawing your ability to act on their behalf against their intended victims than it would be to deprive the intended victims of their human right to adequately defend themselves.