[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Yes.

Why?

[Woolie Wool]

I put the "why" in my above post.

Everyone can theorise about killing someone who perpetrates a crime against them but I would only ever use lethal force if someone threatened the lives of my friends, I'm reasonably capable of subduing most physical attacks and conventional cutting and bludgeoning attacks. To actually kill someone is the single most heinous act I can consider, and to kill someone for murdering someone else is most hypocritical.

Also, a gun is not always a lethal weapon. Shooting someone with a small-caliber weapon in a nonvital body part is an excellent way to incapacitate someone with relatively low risk of death.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I put the "why" in my above post.

no, I was asking if you would prefer to have freely available guns oppossed to an environment where guns were heavily restricted and extremely difficult to obtain (and illegal).  i.e. virtually no criminals have (or are able to have) guns.

In short, would you prefer to have guns or no guns -   atall?

[Woolie Wool]

I think excessive restrictions would be unnecessary and would really not stop the most dangerous criminals from getting their weapons (many of which are illegal weapons anyway). You'd still have a lot of violent crime and hunting and the various sports associated with firearms would be all but extinguished. That would result in a lot of really pissed-off people.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I think excessive restrictions would be unnecessary and would really not stop the most dangerous criminals from getting their weapons (many of which are illegal weapons anyway). You'd still have a lot of violent crime and hunting and the various sports associated with firearms would be all but extinguished. That would result in a lot of really pissed-off people.

So you prefer more guns to less guns?  i.e. you'd rather work towards a world where everyone needs an SMG to walk down the street, than one working towards completely safety?

[beatspete]

"What's your standpoint on use of force in defense of life and property? "

Pretty much the same as Aldo's.


"A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle."

...So people shouldn't need to pass a driving test to drive, is what your saying?  You can't just hand out weapons to anybody who claims its their right.

Woolie - so ok, you have your pistol. The robber, realising that most people now own a pistol, gets a bigger gun, an automatic rifle or something.  What are you gonna do, get a machine gun?!  
Your either gonna end up with;
A. all your neighbours getting machine guns (so they dont get robbed) and being more of a threat on their own than a simple robber
B. A robber attacking you with RPGs and rocket launchers just so he can theive your TV.


"What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own"
Ok, 6 big guys with guns pointed at you walk up to you in a dark street and tell you to hand over your wallet.  Do you think:
A. I'll nicely give them my wallet, report it to the police, get some new cards and claim insurance.
OR
B. I'll pull out my gun and shoot myself some punk ass.

Unless you've got a Predator style minigun under your jacket, B isnt an option, is it?

You can't give people the right to carry a lethal assult weapon - because somebody always wants a bigger one.

[Woolie Wool]

I want a world where no one would need a gun on a day-to-day basis, but one could acquire a gun for sport, for hunting, for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case" (because you can't just stamp out violent assaults on people and property) without excessive difficulty.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
I want a world where no one would need a gun on a day-to-day basis, but one could acquire a gun for sport, for hunting, for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case" (because you can't just stamp out violent assaults on people and property) without excessive difficulty.

But how could you differentiate between who's going to use them for mugging or whatnot, and who's  going to use them 'legitemately' (not that I consider bloodsports anything to be encourage - hunt the hunters, maybe then they'll appreciate it.  And as for moose hunting.......).  Especially without excessive difficulty.

?

Or more importantly, if we have a world where we don;t need guns - why have them atall?  If you don;t need to kill someone, what do you need a gun for?

[beatspete]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
for stashing in a collection, or for "just in case"

Fortunatly i live in a part of the world where i don't feel a constant threat that someone is going to shoot at me in the street.  Yes, a few people own guns to shoot deer or birds, whatever....
But nobody has a gun rack - on their gun rack.

Swamping civilians with weapons doesnt make the world a peaceful place.


Of course there's still crime and all, but that's the business of the Police.

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by beatspete
"What's your standpoint on use of force in defense of life and property? "

Pretty much the same as Aldo's.


"A test doesn't guarantee responsible use. Driver's licenses don't prevent idiots from getting piss drunk, driving on the wrong side of the road, and crashing into another car head-on. A hunting license doesn't prevent people from shooting their neighbors in the kneecaps with a hunting rifle."

...So people shouldn't need to pass a driving test to drive, is what your saying?  You can't just hand out weapons to anybody who claims its their right.

Incompetent drivers generally avoid driving because of the human instinct to avoid suicidal acts. Also, I'm not saying that we should toss out M16s to absolutely everyone, but you shouldn't have to wade through a swamp of beauracracy and licensing to get one. People don't generally use cars as weapons because they risk injuring or killing themselves. People use guns as weapons because guns are safe to the user unless you do something incredibly stupid like put your hand over the muzzle. Besides, driver's licensing is a bit easier to enforce than gun licensing because you can't exactly hide a car in your pocket.

Woolie - so ok, you have your pistol. The robber, realising that most people now own a pistol, gets a bigger gun, an automatic rifle or something.  What are you gonna do, get a machine gun?!  
Your either gonna end up with;
A. all your neighbours getting machine guns (so they dont get robbed) and being more of a threat on their own than a simple robber
B. A robber attacking you with RPGs and rocket launchers just so he can theive your TV.

First of all, only an idiot would use an RPG for attacking anything but an armored vehicles. They are inaccurate, clumsy, and dangerous. Second, there are some very nasty pistols and shotguns on the market, but not everybody owns a .44 magnum or 10-gauge. Why would it be any different with SMGs?


"What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own"

Ok, 6 big guys with guns pointed at you walk up to you in a dark street and tell you to hand over your wallet.  Do you think:
A. I'll nicely give them my wallet, report it to the police, get some new cards and claim insurance.
OR
B. I'll pull out my gun and shoot myself some punk ass.

No, you first take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire. Quickly. Then you get behind cover like a wall or car, and then draw them into your gunsights. Typical strategy. Plus a gang of 6 tough guys may not just want your wallet.

You can't give people the right to carry a lethal assult weapon - because somebody always wants a bigger one.

Then why isn't everyone walking around with hugely powerful handguns like the Desert Eagle or .44 Magnum?

[Woolie Wool]

But how could you differentiate between who's going to use them for mugging or whatnot, and who's going to use them 'legitemately' (not that I consider bloodsports anything to be encourage - hunt the hunters, maybe then they'll appreciate it. And as for moose hunting.......). Especially without excessive difficulty

It's impossible to tell, but the US public would probably rather start another revolution than be deprived of their firearms. Or just vote your ass out of office. Not that a gun-banning amendment would get through in the first place because it has to be voted on by the American people as well as Congress and get two-thirds of the vote. From both.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

It's impossible to tell, but the US public would probably rather start another revolution than be deprived of their firearms. Or just vote your ass out of office.

So?  What's your point?

 People would change as they got used to it - even if they're not already sick of needing a sub-machine gun to feel safe.  Public opinion would change as people took stock of the benefits.

And that's assuming there is a large base of public opinion against gun control / abolition.

And foregoing the philisophical issue of the whole issue.

EDIt

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS AND GUN CONTROL

Since the Gallup organisation first polled on the gun issue in 1938,  two-thirds of Americans have consistently favoured stricter gun controls. This is in spite of the fact that any representative survey sample would contain a proportion of gun owners. Polls have also revealed that majorities do not favour a complete ban on the civilian ownership of handguns ( Harding 1998 , 215-7).

A May 2000 Gallup poll conducted one week before the Million Mom March found that 62% (72% of women and 52% of men) favoured stricter gun controls; 73% supported handgun registration and 69% the licensing of gun owners; 82% approved of raising the minimum age for handgun possession from 18 years to 21 years; 79% were in favour of the requirement that all new guns sold be equipped with trigger locks and 89% of respondents agreed that mandatory sentences should be imposed on all felons who commit crimes with guns ( Gallup 2000) .

(http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:me2OH_92JcgJ:apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/beauchamp.rtf+Us+citizens+in+favour+of+banning+guns&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

I think the percentage in favour of outlawing guns is around 40%, but I can;t find stats for that yet.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

Really dedicated criminals will be able to get guns no matter what you try to do. What if an armed gang tries to rob you? How do you fight back without a gun of your own. Besides, the Consitution protects our right to keep and bear arms, and overriding the 2nd amendment with a new amendment would be impossible due to public sentiment.

Ever heard of the number of death by year due to firearms in Japan ? Less than one hundred. More than ten thousands a year in America. Even the policeman in Japan don't have a free access to firearms. If there are so few really dedicated criminals, I'd say that banning firearms would be a good idea. But then, I don't have the right to own a weapon in case of my country being invaded by those pesky English people

[beatspete]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool

First of all, only an idiot would use an RPG for attacking anything but an armored vehicles. They are inaccurate, clumsy, and dangerous. Second, there are some very nasty pistols and shotguns on the market, but not everybody owns a .44 magnum or 10-gauge. Why would it be any different with SMGs?

No, you first take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire. Quickly. Then you get behind cover like a wall or car, and then draw them into your gunsights. Typical strategy. Plus a gang of 6 tough guys may not just want your wallet.
 

By the RPG example, i didnt mean an actuall RPG, it was just an example of excessive fire-power.

"take steps to position yourself to get out of the line of fire".
So three guys walking down the street fairly innocently, aim guns on you just as they get to.  Three more from behind.  Its a pretty empty street, no cars to dive behind.  But in your blind self power you pull your gun out and get shot to **** by them, and they steal your blood soaked wallet anyway.
If you  believe so strongly in the right to defend yourself when only a fool would, you need to have a serious think about things.

[SadisticSid]

OK, all this crap about robbers getting bigger guns is just that - crap. If someone wants to steal your TV or computer or whatever, they don't intend to murder anyone. In a more just world, allowing a householder to defend his property by any means necessary would allow them to legally kill a criminal on their property or at least seriously injure them. That's how I see it - a criminal should forego EVERY right during the moment of a crime.

[Rictor]

Somone is after your TV so you think that a just punishment is death?

And should we start cutting off people's hands for shoplifting? How about cutting out their tongues for treason? Maybe a quick shot to the balls for looking at you the wrong way?

[jdjtcagle]

Originally posted by Rictor
Somone is after your TV so you think that a just punishment is death?

And should we start cutting off people's hands for shoplifting? How about cutting out their tongues for treason? Maybe a quick shot to the balls for looking at you the wrong way?

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -Ghandi

[Turambar]

NRA = Not Really American

"Get your stinking paws off my gun you damn dirty apes!"

[Kazan]

Rictor: I was talking about the fact it sounded liek you were stereotyping all white americans as racist

------------------------

A good rifle in the hands of a skilled marksmen is immensely more powerful than an automatic weapon - someone could break into my house and have an automatic weapon and I'd probably win just given a .22

Why? I am a great marksmen, I know the terrain and I don't need a very large target profile to put a bullet in their head  -- I am a skilled enough marksmen that I probably wouldn't need lethal force and would shoot the gun out of his/her hands and then pop one in their knee before they fled

[Gank]

Need MP7s to defend yourself? I've met some seriously paranoid people but that just takes the bisket (sp)