I'd like an anti to answer

An anti will respond that although the police may not have a legal duty to protect you, they nevertheless faithfully and consistently act to prevent crime and to respond to calls for help. A typical police officer has far more formal firearm training than a civilian does. And the thousands of lives that would be saved each year justifies the banning of guns, because the number of citizens killed each year by guns greatly exceeds the relatively rare instances of a civilian using a firearm to protect themselves or their families.

Oh, I feel so dirty.....:D

But this isn't a debate team. Freedom costs, whether it is freedom of speech, freedom to keep and bear arms, or freedom to procreate.
 
But this isn't a debate team. Freedom costs, whether it is freedom of speech, freedom to keep and bear arms, or freedom to procreate.
Click to expand...

But if a push to amend the Constitution ever actually gets going, we'll need a debate team.

Oh, and at least one part of the response to the above is the idea that widespread gun ownership causes passive crime reduction...that some criminals are dissuaded from crime or from certain types of crime merely by knowing victims could be (or are) armed, that the gun need not actually be used. And that that must also be weighed against the potential lives saved from firearms injuries.

Most of which are suicides anyway, who (based on stats in other countries) will just find some other way.

Then they'll say "nuh-uh" and just tell you you're wrong. Which is easy, because it's really hard to prove all the crimes that didn't happen thanks to private gun ownership.
 
We often hear people say "You don't need a gun, just call the police!"

But what if the police are the ones who are attacking you? It is not an uncommon possibility - open any history book.

A democidal government is a far greater threat than a common criminal is. When you focus only on common crime, you're missing the bigger picture.

Yes, I'll be the first to admit, it's true that I don't need a "military style assault weapon" to defend myself from a mugger. My 5 shot revolver works just fine for that purpose. However, if I have to defend myself from agents of the State, I want to do it with a homeland defense rifle such as an AR15 or FAL with "high capacity" magazines, not a break open shotgun.
 
SecDef said:
I carry my pepper spray everywhere on my keys. If I ever find myself in a non "green" situation, my keys are in my hand. If I feel threatened, I am a lot more likely to use it than a gun. No seconds thoughts as to whether I hit friends near me or any other bystanders.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate her desire to use non-lethal measures out of concern for others. She wants to function within the limits of her ability to respond, and non-lethal is better than no defense at all.

SecDef said:
She goes on to say that the chances of being in the mall or church and needing a gun are so exceedingly slim that it isn't worth being prepared for them. Her metaphor: She doesn't carry snake anti-venom when she goes hiking....
Click to expand...

This is simply illogical. I imagine she'd be deeply concerned if others responsible for her safety (doctors, pilots) applied the same carelessness: Surgeon: "Well, your Mom may hemorrhage during this operation, but it rarely happens so we're not keeping a blood supply on reserve." Additionally, the same "why bother" approach could easily be applied to her use of the pepper spray, seatbelts, etc.

One does not have to try very hard to find numerous attacks on churches, schools and malls. The Colorado church attack was stopped by an armed woman.

My wife's thinking about risk was permanently altered when the Nickel Mines Amish school shooting shattered our community, and killed several members of her extended family.
 
Before 1968, when a felon had paid his debt to society, I believe his firearm rights were restored automatically -- actually, they had never really been revoked in the first place other than guns were not available nor allowed while he was incarcerated. And I don't recall that ex-cons having guns was ever a problem. Of course, I was a young'un back then. Maybe some of the oldtimers here could fill us in.
Click to expand...

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 forbade indicted or convicted felons from shipping or receiving firearms in interstate commerce, and forbade FFLs from selling to felons. There were also state firearms bars to felons.
 
This is an interesting thread and begs a question: is there any web site anywhere where issues of "gun control" and gun ownership are discussed in anything approaching a civil manner? It seems that positions on this issue, like abortion, have become so polarized that there is no room for a middle ground or civil discourse.

I doubt that either side is eventually going to get anything close to everything they want. Just as with presidential elections, where there are committed Republicans and committed Democrats, the outcome will be decided by the uncommitted folks being swayed towards one side or the other. That's why I think it behooves people who are serious about preserving rights of gun ownership to somehow reach out to those people who haven't yet taken a stand and appeal to them logically. Hanging around boards or blogs where everyone pretty much agrees with your position may be self-satisfying, but unlikely to reach this goal.

I can understand the reaction of people who are unfamiliar with firearms to be fearful of them, and I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of people who see criminal gun use in our society, to want to pass laws to "make guns go away", especially if they never forsee themselves possessing a firearm. Those are the folks who could potentially be swayed toward accepting that firearms have a legitimate use for self-defence, and that gun-control laws will not be any more effective in eliminating guns in our society than our laws "eliminating" illegal drugs, or illegal alliens have been.

I accept that the mainstream media has been, with a few exceptions, remarkably biased towards limiting gun ownership, so it would seem that the internet is the best way to make the appeal to people in the middle, but how?
 
I've also noticed how much misinformation about Tasers is put out in entertainment media. Most of the time in TV and movies, they render the subject unconscious on the floor, rather than the reality of the effects disappearing after the current stops.
 
This is simply illogical. I imagine she'd be deeply concerned if others responsible for her safety (doctors, pilots) applied the same carelessness: Surgeon: "Well, your Mom may hemorrhage during this operation, but it rarely happens so we're not keeping a blood supply on reserve." Additionally, the same "why bother" approach could easily be applied to her use of the pepper spray, seatbelts, etc.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure your characterization of illogical is accurate. The chances of needing a seatbelt is several orders of magnitude greater then needing to use deadly force. Doctors have blood supply at hand when doing an operation, but not when doing a physical.
 
We often hear people say "You don't need a gun, just call the police!"

But what if the police are the ones who are attacking you? It is not an uncommon possibility - open any history book.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do. Look at recent news articles regarding police breaking down the wrong door, people getting killed, cops getting shot at. In all cases, police were not held accountable, and those that defended themselves are in prison.
 
SecDef said:
The chances of needing a seatbelt is several orders of magnitude greater then needing to use deadly force.
Click to expand...

This may be generally true, although not in my case. I have actually been restrained by a seatbelt once (I was 16, Dad's car, wet road...) and I had to de-escalate a confrontation with the display of a weapon once (holstered).

However, granting the difference in magnitude, the philosophy remains the same; if the possibilty exists, then the preparation is logical.
 
Do you carry needle and thread on your person in case you need an emergency self suture?
Do you have latex gloves in you car in case you need to pull over and help someone in an accident / do engine work / replace a tire?

According to you, answering no to either of these is illogical. However, the point isn't that there is a possibility. You have to think in terms of probability, and hopefully in cases* where the probability isn't close to zero.

Just because something is possible doesn't necessarily mean that you need to take action. If that were the case, you'd be changing your passwords everyday.

*obviously one individuals situation is unique in determining this. If I were to be carrying large amounts of cash on a known route every single day, you can be sure that my odds of needing a firearm would be significantly higher.

** I'm not doing a very good job of arguing the anti position that nobody should have guns.. I apologize.
 
SecDef said:
Do you carry needle and thread on your person in case you need an emergency self suture?
Click to expand...

Well, there is an emergency Med kit in the car, and sufficient emergency medical care is a fifteen minute helicopter ride away. There is an entire medical infrastructure in our society that dwarfs that of police protection.

Do you have latex gloves in you car in case you need to pull over and help someone in an accident / do engine work / replace a tire?
Click to expand...

Yup, along with a fire extinguisher and small tool kit. I learned to do this during my years in Germany where it is required.

Tell granola girl I even carry a snake bite kit into the woods, although I have never used it to bite any snakes.:)
 
According to you, answering no to either of these is illogical. However, the point isn't that there is a possibility. You have to think in terms of probability, and hopefully in cases* where the probability isn't close to zero.

Just because something is possible doesn't necessarily mean that you need to take action. If that were the case, you'd be changing your passwords everyday.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Being prepared is always logical. Not preparing because you've considered the probability and decided it's not worth the effort/expense is also logical if you are good at determining the odds.

People are notoriously bad at doing cost/benefit analysis regarding very-low-probablity very-high-cost events.

(this made a lot more sense in my head before I tried to write it out...)
 
this made a lot more sense in my head before I tried to write it out...
Click to expand...

and yet still managed to convey what I was originally trying to say quite well, thank you.

I would think though that carry and wearing a vest would go hand in hand. ;)
 
Back to Subject:

So what forbids a felon to have a firearm?

We all know the bad ones will obtain one from some place if the wish.

Now days a felony could be Parking tickets, Late Child support payments, These people pose no threat to me.

They can charge you with a felon for leaving your dog out in the dark, in the cold!

Ranchers do it all the time with cows, horses and the like.


What a Hoot! It's all just another way to disarm.
 
The destiny of the Chinese is being revealed.
Click to expand...
I see your point and agree with it. I could argue that these same Chinese are the descendants of the ruthless Khan who had the men killed and the women impregnated by his troops in the middle ages. I could say that the only way to get them out of Tibet would be to use Mao's advice that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. But then I'm not at all as advanced of a spirit as my Buddhist friend.

There is really something eerie about somebody who is so dedicated of a pacifist as these guys, who actually does love his enemy.
 
This is an interesting thread and begs a question: is there any web site anywhere where issues of "gun control" and gun ownership are discussed in anything approaching a civil manner? It seems that positions on this issue, like abortion, have become so polarized that there is no room for a middle ground or civil discourse.
Click to expand...

Depends. One on one most people can have a civil discussion about just about any topic. You might not end up agreeing on anything but at least you've had a chance to speak your piece.
It's when people who are absolutists on a subject that real conflict occurs and any chance of comity flies out the window.
In groups the absolutist will often set the agenda and, through antagonism, radicalize the opposition and keep the less fervent on his side in line with their holy writ.

So I'm not really hopeful of workable compromise. At best we can expect detente
 
SecDef-what kind of 'automatic weapons do you own" or have you not explained the difference of auto loading and automatic to your 'granola friend'.

Sounds like she works for a TV news network or newspaper. They like to intermingle the trems(muddy up).
 
SecDef-what kind of 'automatic weapons do you own" or have you not explained the difference of auto loading and automatic to your 'granola friend'.

Sounds like she works for a TV news network or newspaper. They like to intermingle the trems(muddy up).
Click to expand...

She is quite aware of the difference. Her first argument isn't against guns, that is her second argument. Her first argument are that there are some guns that are inappropriate for the "self defense" defense. Hey, she also think you shouldn't have a tank, either.
 
What would an anti say?

They say what they always say, "no, you don't need a gun". They may go on and embelish it with all kinds of arguments as to why they think you don't need a gun, but it all always boils down to the same answer, and that answer is "NO".

For me, the whole argument over gun control boils down to a very simple question. Does anyone else have the right to decide what property you can own? I make no argument about others having a say in what one may do with your property (after all, we do have laws that say we cannot shoot people for fun and profit, and no one seems to have any heartburn with that). But gun control is not about what you can do with your property, it is about what they think you might do with it.

The elitists believe that we ought not to have weapons (some will allow us to have "sporting" arms, and what they consider weapons suitable for self defense, while others wish we had none at all), because they fear what we might do with them. I find this idea morally repugnant. I could make an equally valid argument that no one should be allowed to have more than a certain dollar amount of money (pick what sounds best to you - $10K? 100K?, etc.), because they might give the money to terrorists.

The idea that someone else ought to decide what you or I "need" has no place in a free society. Yes, things that harm others should be controlled, but until, and unless that harm is done, they should not. Prior restraint is an assumption, and those making it should remember the old saying about what happens when you "assume".

It isn't just about 2nd Amendment rights, it is also all about the pursuit of happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top