Help me understand.

F

FUD

Moderator
Let's say that the anti's get their way and private ownership of guns is outlawed. How do they propose people defend themselves from violent crime?

Let's say you encounter an intrudor in your home who broke in thinking that nobody is home. He's a 200 pound ex-con looking for drug money and you & your family have now seen his face and he doesn't want to take a chance of going back to prison so he grabs a knife (remember, there are no guns any more) from your kitchen table. What is a person suppose to do?

I guess one could call the police but chances are that they would get there too late to be of any help. Also, consider this ... <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Incredible as it may seem, the courts have ruled that the police are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help, even in life threatening situations -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).[/quote]How is a young mother or anyone who is not as physically fit as the BG suppose to protect themselves?

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited February 25, 2000).]
 
How do they propose people defend themselves from violent crime?

Call 911, duh.

Even though a person can be killed in 2 seconds, and 911 response time is several minutes, if you're lucky enough to get them to show at all, assuming the goblin hasn't cut off your communications in the first place.

Even though the Supremes have ruled several times that the government owes no obligation of protection to its' citizens.

Even though criminals uniformly agree that attacking an armed person is a Bad Idea.

Makes you wonder whose side they're on, hm? :(

------------------
"If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance."
-- Samuel Johnson

[This message has been edited by Coinneach (edited February 25, 2000).]
 
OK, given your pre-existing conditions...

Well of course the solution is that both the criminal and the home owner have their impulse control and locator chips implanted. The chip, sensing the danger posed by the criminal shocks him into un-consciousness, and alerts the federal law enforcement agency for pickup (federal because he's already an ex-con).

The chip in the home owner, sensing that there was fear and doubt in the home owners mind, calls the federal though enforcement agency for pickup and re-education.

And a tax is levied against both the criminal, home owner, home builder, door or window manufacturer (depending on how the criminal broke in) and the local municipalities of both the criminal and home owner.

Criminal - to pay for the federal law enforcement agencies participation, and to pay for any potential law suit against the criminal.
Home Owner - to pay for the federal thought enforcement agencies participation, and to pay for any potential law suit against the home owner.
Home Builder - for not placing adequate security measures in place.
Door or window manufacturer - for not building their product to withstand a criminals attack.
Local municipalities - they obviously failed in some way to either protect the home owner, not give enough support to the criminal to prevent his crime, or allowing homes to be built that are attractive to criminals.

Scary huh...

And why... because no one had the means to defend themselves or their kids from the government shoving chips into our heads. After all it was for the childrens safety.

------------------
Peace through superior firepower...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
 
Seriously, though. Why don't anti's see this as a problem. Since the police is not always able (and not even legally required) to protect the public, why wouldn't everyone want the best means available to protect themselves and their family? I just don't understand.
 
The anti-gun, anti-self-defense zealots live in such a fantasy world that the real consequences of what they're seeking never bother them. They're basically urban pacifists who assume, like Chamberlain at Munich, that if we're nice to the bad guys and stop defending ourselves with guns, the bad guys will be nice to us right back. Of course, history teaches anyone willing to listen that the bad guys just laugh at pacifism and the dupes who believe in it. The full-time job of BGs is to be bad, and they'll be as bad as we let them get away with.

Then again, the hard core of anti-gun crusaders are elite types who live in protected environments and gated communities. They figure they'll be secure no matter what. And since they disdain and distrust the general run of mankind, they also figure that they have more to fear from democracy than from criminals. It's nothing to the antis that they imperil the security of the groundlings. After all, they're just groundlings, so it must be their fault.

My little rant. :mad:
 
I think the antis never have dialed 911 before. In 1990 when I was a freshman in college, I saw a Saab 900 lose control and smash into a brick retaining wall outside my dorm. Since I was in my dorm room, I picked up the phone to dial 511 (the "911" of the University of Pennsylvania).

The damn thing was BUSY.

Justin

------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
 
It is very simple and very hard to believe. Truth is, the antis for the most part DO NOT BELIEVE IN SELF_DEFENSE.

Some, like my quadmates, think that self defense is morally wrong. If you are absolutely certain that the man with a knife to your throat is about to kill you, and you defend yourself, and he dies, you have committed murder in their eyes.

Others believe that self-defense is ineffective and dangerous. These are the people who say to just cooperate because most criminals, in their eyes, are good people who only resort to crime in order to survive, and who don't want to hurt you, and won't unless you provoke them by trying to prevent the crime.

Finally, there are those (most people) who think that defending the innocent is a job, which can be assigned to certain people in society and forgotten by the rest, kind of the way they have plumbers and carpenters. These people reason that if there is a problem with plumbing, they'll call a plumber and it works, but if they try to fix it themselves, they'll screw it up. Applying what they know of life (you're a helpless moron, so call a professional) to the hypothetical situation of a criminal attack, they assume it to be valid. So the only solution they can think of is to call a professional and then do absolutely nothing because they'd probably just screw it up.

Like I said, at least some of the truth is VERY simple, just VERY hard to believe.

Important things are usually very simple, and simple things are usually very difficult.
 
Let me try to explain my thoughts on the question.


There are I believe 4 major types of people who support civil disarmament.
Many people may belong in more that one group or have bits of each in the thought process.

The first type are the emotionally driven many of these people simply can not or will not think logically on this issue, but must emote to make an abstract decision. Decisions made on emotion may be fine for many day to day things but as for matters of policy it is a poor substitute for cold hard logic. These people are very hard to debate as they are not reasoning on a logical level. This is in my opinion the largest group of the four.

The second major type of prohibitionist is the Utopian/Controller they believe that with a little less freedom and an the right people running the system we can live in a Utopia, these are the people who truly
believe that gun laws will work someday, this is of course the same mentality that joined the SA or the Red Guards or were loyal party members. Please note these first two groups
really believe that gun control will make them safer and society better.

The third type is in my mind the most dangerous and I believe a small but powerful minority of the "anti's" they are the people who have grasped that "power comes from the barrel of a gun" and are intent upon being the only people who have them, not usually themselves but trough agents of the state (Police, Military, Internal Security ) some if not all feel that they or at least like minded people will rule benevolently and that when they are in power the rest of us will be thankful for their leadership.
Those of us who are not thankful are either mentally handicapped, and in need of re-education or are criminals to be dealt with as enemies of the state. It is a small minority with in this minority that willingly sees the endgame as most people just refuse to acknowledge the darker side of both history and mankind

Lastly there is a group that does not believe it will work nor do they care they just see it as another market form which to garner votes or money. It is these political and monetarily driven types that the force of the ballot box and cash register are the only tools we have to work with. They can bend with pressure but NEVER count on them later for any form of support once that pressure is gone.
 
Remember Gary Larson's Far Side with the Dob-o-matic? Although, by the time we get to all guns being held by the feds and criminals, I expect that dogs will be strictly regulated or outright banned.
 
FUD...

Your quote: "Let's say that the anti's get their way and private ownership of guns is outlawed."

Where were the 90 million American gunowners with their 280,000,000 guns during this abolution? Did I miss something? Your quote, assuming the "antis" have a chance to accomplish such a monstrous task, is giving far too much credit to your perceived adversary.

Think about the logistics here. To abolish private firearm ownership in America is to transform 90 million law abiding honest people into immediate criminals. Now, assuming that the government grew balls big enough to publicly shred our Constitution, thereby eliminating this unalienable right, how do you suppose enforcement could over rule a resistance? If one tenth of the existing gunowners participated in a resistance, our adversaries would be facing 9 million armed (and very angry) citizens. You say 9 million is exagerating, take one tenth of that...900,000 armed and twice as angry (because they know so many cowards are leaving this monumental task up to them) rebelious citizens against who? Bureaucrats and their F-troop thugs? Come now.

Do you think that antis are sitting around in their anti-gun forums posting topics about giving in to the gunowners? Exactly, so why should you? Gunowners ought to get off their dead behinds, learn what's ahead of us, and get ready to keep this nation free, at any cost.

If you need help with target acquisition, I'll be happy to assist.
 
In my experience with most normal everyday people, they just don't think about what
could happen to them. Most people live in such a la-la land, wrapped up in their own lives,that they give no thought to such things. My own family is guilty of this. I think most people convince themselves "It won't happen to me." Then there are the groups that Gwinny and Nestor mentioned.

------------------
"Liberty or death, What we so proudly hail... Once you provoke Her, rattling of Her tail- Never begins it, NEVER- But once engaged never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage. DON'T TREAD ON ME!!

"Many's the men who've battled foe
many the number slain,
many the lads have fallen though
Scotland shall rise again."
 
Several good answers here. If you do this long enough, eventually you will encounter the full spectrum of twisted logic that accompanies their arguments.
I think that most of them just don't have a clue. They just don't think they are ever going to find themselves in a situation where their life may hang in the balance, so they see no reason to take any measures to protect themselves. Nor can they understand your desire to do so either.
My wife is currently in the process of getting her CCW. She recently completed the required course and just needs to get her paperwork together and shipped off. She needed some documents notarized and decided to ask one of our clients, who was a lawyer, if he would do that for her.
At first he hesitated, then after pointing out his displeasure, as well as declaring that he could never bring himself to kill someone, that he would rather die first himself, he agreed to perform the task.
We thanked him for the favor and told him that we could respect his feelings on this matter.
I then pointed out that neither of us wanted to kill anyone either. That having a gun available doesn't mean that you have to use it unless it's really necessary.
I pointed out that we'll never know how many people who shared his view may have changed their mind in that instant when they realized they were going to lose their life at the hands of some psychopath.
It's one thing to have some noble outlook on life and death when your life is not in jeopardy. It's quite another matter when you understand that your existence is about to be irrevocably terminated in a matter of seconds.
Changing your mind in that eternal instant, and lacking the means to do anything about it, is probably one of the saddest things I can think of.
It was obvious from the look on his face that it was something he had just never even considered.
 
FUD you made a mistake..

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"He's a 200 pound ex-con looking for drug money"[/quote]

Didn't you know drugs are illegal too ? We don't have them in this country, just like we won't have guns. So to answer your question, since drugs don't exist, they're will be no need to protect yourself from addicts strapped for cash. Oh, but in the event the law just happened to let some slip in country, I'm sure a corked Louisville slugger would be suitable protection against someone high on PCP, or steroids, or cocaine, meth ect.

But seriously, take up a martial art. Three months of Grappling or Jui Jitsu and you will be amazed at what your capable of, not to mention, it gets you in great shape. If you are seriously concerned about self defense, I would pursue this before you bought a gun.
 
Muscles, good observation about martial arts. Learn to use bare hands and at least sticks if you can. If you can use a stick you're never very far from a weapon, though it might still be too far.

But you also have to remember that MA is fine for us young 'uns (I turn 22 next month,) but not for everyone. My grandma Gwinn can't wrestle nor could she last through a sparring session in any art you care to name, but she can shoot. I feel better knowing that. :D

I forgot another group which is probably (we'd better hope) as large or larger than the others--the people who have simply never thought about it at all. I don't know if you've noticed but there's a definite tendency to consciously avoid thought in our society; you're supposed to "go with yourself." Expressing a serious thought gets you mocked about 80% of the time. I'm corresponding with a friend right now who is slowly coming around. All her statements are "I would think that with more gun laws people would be scared and there'd be less crime." or "I would think that if you could carry a gun there would be a lot more murders over small things." What this means, of course, is "I have never thought about this or tried to find out what the facts are; but now that you are forcing me to think about it in order to keep up with you, this is my first impression.
The good part about this group is that, if they examine their own beliefs carefully and also do some looking for facts, they often come to our side, just like those people who gave it only momentary thought until their lives were threatened.
 
I would be a criminal!!!! And They won't take all our guns away at once. It will be the assualt rifle, handgun, then any simi/pump/lever action, bolt action, single shot... By the time they get to the semi/pump most hunters will here this POP.. their head coming out of their ace.. And if the gov't starts to envade our house's and the people fight back, WOO HOO I still have my AR's AK's and every other evil gun...

And here's a thought to choke on. What if all 80 Million of us would unite, and say we where as crazy as we are made out to be. Went on a rampage and wanted this country to ourselves. Who the hell would stop us??? the Military wouldn't, not enough of them, and the fact that at least a 1/3 would join our cause.. we would lose, lets just say 5 million. That leaves 75 million left to take out a gun-free society. BS every ANTI would be coming up with a gun some how, or would they call 911???
 
Maybe this should be moved to H. Humphries forum.

Anyway, even w/out guns, I've got two PR 24 near my bed and I can use them with either hand. My crossbow is in the garage (not enough space in the closet), which won't do me any good if I need it.

I suppose that I can always get my sword from the closet, but I don't feel comfortable wielding it since I've never really received any training in edge weapons other than taking fencing and saber in college.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt

[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited February 25, 2000).]
 
My wife was a fence sitter. She saw no need to have a gun in our rural Indiana smalltown USA. Then a lady she worked with, a real nice lady, got battered by her OWN fire extinguisher in her OWN kitchen by a punk who broke into HER house. Her son, fortunately, was home and dispatched the assailant with a 20 gauge. This lady lived clear out in the boonies.
My wife has a ccw permit now, although she doesn't practice much. She loves the fact that I carry EVERYWHERE it is legal, and she knows where the gun safe key is if she should ever need.
The whole family is more aware of things now.
It is a shame that people don't think about the bad things that can happen. I don't mean dwell on them, but consider them in your everyday movements. When you don't respect the odds, the odds bite you in the behind.

------------------
Knock twice. Rap with your cane. Feels nice. You're out of the rain. We got your skinny girls. Here at the Western World
from Steely Dan's "Western World"
 
Well, I have a couple of good samurai words around and a the Japanese say "he who is struck once with a good sword will seldom need striking again."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top