He ceased to have that when he chose to carry out a premeditated attack on another person who was attempting to carry out their pursuit.

(nods) For what it's worth, Kag, I see your point, and although I disagree with it, I respect it for being pretty thorough.

There is evidence (no I won't cite specifics, because AFAIK it's common knowledge) that with the proper training in these types of situations, the likelihood of you retaining rational control of yourself increases dramatically.

How do you think soldiers prepare for war?

As to personal choices, that's each individuals' decision. This is why JesterX is getting such a hard time. If he doesn't want to carry a gun, that's his choice, and he is free to suffer any consequences that result of it.

I don't carry one, but that's mostly because I don't feel that I need to where I live. If I lived in a "dangerous" area, and it was legal, I'd have a CC in a heartbeat. This is because my thoughts on this echo Critias' nearly totally. Training + means = control of any situation. (Where the training and means are relevant to the situation at hand, I don't mean "carrying a gun would solve everything.)

edit: I also see your point, Kage. I, however, have no such compunction against protecting myself by violent measure if necessary. Difference of choice.

One thing I will say, on the issue of practicality, however, is that if we're "allowed" to carry a gun to defend ourselves, that does nothing to your right not to. If we're told that all guns are illegal, it leaves your choice intact, but negates ours. And given that it's pretty clear that "guns are illegal" would only mean "only criminals carry guns", I'd rather have the option to defend myself if need be when one of those Scary Bad Men decides he wants to shoot at me.

See, it's the training that we haven't sorted out. Where are we suddenly getting from "guns are legal to carry" to "people are trained in firearm use"?

~J

Anyone that wants to carry a weapon is required (in most places, as part of the registration and licensing process) to take firearms safety courses. Most of these that I have seen or read about are no joke.

An untrained user is dangerous, yes. But to me, that means "provide more training and make sure people that want it are getting it ", not "take away all guns because that'll solve things".

There's a teensy little difference between "can handle a gun without accidentally shooting someone" and "can effectively use a gun in a combat situation".

~J

I rest my case... Most of you fail to see my logic and I don't have any more arguments... You want your people to have guns... that's fine with me, please, let this mentality stay in your country and nowhere else in the world.

Part of what I mean when I say "training" is also education about the need and reasons for firearms training and safety.

And to be fair, I never said that "giving guns to everyone" was an answer, nor that "more people owning guns" would mean that everyone with a gun knew how to use it effectively and safely.

And yes, it can be expensive and hard to manage. The person that can't become trained, or hasn't the time to spend learning to use the weapon, has no business carrying it. If they didn't train, didn't practice, didn't learn, and still insisted on carrying a weapon, I would tell them that they were wrong.

Shrike: at the most extreme end of that philosophy, the real danger is not that the aggressor might be harmed or killed, but that you might yourself commit aggression.

~J

I usually wouldn't do this but:

Page Flip!

I edited my last post to more thoroughly address something of yours, Kage. Just a heads up, should you care to read it.

I can think of few situations where carrying a gun doesn't increase the likelihood of getting shot.

If someone threatens you up close and they are not physically a match for you, then pulling a gun is overly aggressive and could well result in a needless death.
If someone threatens you up close and they are physically a match for you, or perhaps have a knife, pulling a gun almost certainly increases your chances of being killed. You have just escalated the situation drastically. Your chances of survival were better with handing over money or talking, than threatening to kill someone in a better position than yourself to kill.
If someone threatens you from a distance, i.e. they already have a gun on you, then drawing your own gun is likely to provoke a pre-emptive attack. You were better trying to defuse the situation.

In some bizarre situation where two people have both conspired to have a gun on each other already, then both will know that the person shooting first has a better chance of survival and both will know that the other person is aware of this too. They will likely try and shoot each other.

In all these cases, the other party is the aggressor. I'm not interested in cases where people think they need to carry a gun to be the aggressor themselves. These are clearly wrong to begin with. However, carrying a gun and the false confidence this often brings, can lead people to be an aggressor when they otherwise wouldn't. Fear can magnify petty violence into something much worse. I've been in few real fights in my life. I've taken some minor injuries. If I had carried a gun, I might have pulled it out and had a death on my hands. Perhaps even mine.

My experience of living for a short time in the US is that americans were a very frightened people a lot of the time. Consequently there was a lot of aggression. I have seen people react with almost homicidal anger at being cut in front of in traffic as if it were their life had been conciously threatened. Seriously. People always seemed on the lookout for the madman that they knew was out there.

At the same time, my experience of americans is that they (as a people) possessed a moral certainty that was genuinely intimidating. There were good guys and there were bad guys and they were worryingly certain about who was who. And in line with this black and white viewpoint, the good guys were morally justified in doing whatever was "necessary" to the bad guys. That degree of moral certainty is alien to me. I know that the only difference between myself and most people is circumstance and which side of my eyeballs I'm on.

I would also like to say though, that at the same time as both of the above, I found american people to be some of the most open and friendly people I have ever met and I was made to feel very welcome there. Their idealism is also great in many ways and is the flipside to the moral certainty.

To me, violence is something to be avoided strenuously. Lethal violence incalculably more so. I cannot see how carrying a gun does not make violence more likely. The probabiliity of me being in a situation where my only recourse is a gun of my own is far less than the probability of me turning a situation that I can get out by talking or taking a few blows into something more fatal by carrying one.

For reference, I have lived in some pretty violent areas in my life so far and have got through them with only minor incidents. In one of those cases, if a gun had been found on me, I think I would very likely have been shot dead.

I have the greatest of respects for Kagetenshi's stated position. He might be interested to know that I have previously taken some minor physical injury rather than retaliate and hurt someone else. He's not alone in that position. In that circumstance, I felt strangely peaceful during and after. In another case, I have injured another person. That was to defend someone else. I still felt sick to my gut with myself afterwards.

I think fear is the big danger. And I think carrying a gun is externalising a little bit of the fear and preparing the way to give into it. Posters here are free to say that they are immune to this, either through training or just self-knowledge and I will accept that. I wont accept that it's the general case. It certainly isn't the case with myself. I'm not brave enough to carry a gun and know it wont be used without cause or turn a bad situation into one much worse.

I think I've said my piece and I don't expect it will change anyone's mind. For what it's worth though, it's another point of view for you to take on board. For some of us, inflicting harm on others can be more damaging to ourselves than having it inflicted on us.

knasser, I'm not trying to negate your post or anything. It's well reasoned and you've obviously thought about the issue.

What I will say in response to this:

alltho i fear "not defending oneself" was one of the first bits of the philosophy that got trown out. or atleast politely ignored when practiced...

First of all, my condolences to the victims and their families.

After reading through four pages of discussion I've seen several valid point for and against gun laws. Let me say beforehand, I live in germany. In our country at the age of 18 you have to serve in the army for a couple of month. If you feel unable to do so for, as we call it, reasons of conscience, you may turn in a written refusal, which then can get approved. If it is, you do civil services for a longer period of time. I refused to serve in the army for such reasons. I detest violence, I am a pacifist and more than once I have suffered for it. And, I am ashamed to say, I have in the past broken my oath of nonviolence on behalf of others. Yet I remain opposed to violence as a countermeasure to violence.

Now, the discussion has primarily been around the personal side of the right or lack thereof to bear firearms. There have also been attempts to connect the amount of crimes to the amount of firearms in circulation, reasoning both, that more firearms cause more crime and that more firearms reduce crime. I doubt that either can be proven at any point.

One thing we should realize however, is that the amount of firearms in the population is directly tied to the amount of crimes committed with firearms. I think most of us also agree that crimes simply happen in the world and that crime in general becomes a whole lot more deadly once firearms are involved.

Now, to get to the point, the problem I see with laws permitting firearms is that, regardless wether or not such laws cause or prevent crimes, the availability of firearms drastically increased. A country where owning a gun is illegal will have very few stores offering firearms, usually speacialised on a small group of people who are permitted to have them. On the contrary, a country where owning a firearm is legal, there will be much more stores simply because there is a market.
Knowing this, it is rather safe to say that a country that does have gun laws is more likely to have lethal crimes that one that doesn't.

For a simple example, a burglar in the US knows that if he is caught by a civilian chances that the civilian is armed and ready to use it are rather high. As a logical precaution most burglars will pack a firearm, if just as a precaution. If said burglar is caught in the act by a civilian chances are also good he will use that firearm in order not to be caught by the police. (Note, im not necessarily talking lethal force here.)
As long as the gun is registered, he will only be charged with the burglar and possibly the assault.

On the other hand, in germany (lack of other examples im familiar with, sorry) simply having a gun on you is a crime. Having a gun on you while committing another crime, like a burglary, will *severely* increase you sentence. Therefore, most burglars in germany will resort to other forms of violence, such as unarmed attacks when needed. While these also have good chances of causing severe damage, the chance is death is noticably lower than when firearms are involved.

Therefore, there is a certain logic to the claim that firearms cause more crimes. While it is not directly the existence of firearms in society, we do have armed criminals too and those who have a gun here are much more likely to use it than in the US, the laws tied to the firearms make lethal crime more likely.

It basically comes down to the viewpoint of survival. In a place where lethal force is readily available it will more likely be used than in a place where it isn't. This is simply because once gun laws are in place, the need to rely on the authorities becomes smaller. (You can, in that perception, protect yourself easier after all) The logical next step is that not only the bad guys, but also the good guys carry guns. Once that is the case, the room for misconceptions and misunderstandings becomes much bigger. (Im having a bit of a hard time explaining this, so I'll give an example)

For instance. A guy walks down a dark alley here in germany. Another person, dressed in black and looking all suspicious walks towards him, one hand in his coat. Suddenly he moves faster and pulls his arm out from under his coat. Depending on the country there are several ways this situation can end:

1. (Germany) He pulls a gun and robs the guy.
2. (US) He pulls a gun and robs the guy.
3. (US) He pulls a gun and in turn gets shot. Self Defense.
4. (Germany) He pulls a gun and in turn gets shot. Self Defense.
5. (US) He doesn't even get to pull the gun an gets shot.
6. (Both) He pulls forth his iPod
7. (US) He doesn't even get to pull the iPod and gets shot.

For fairness sake, I have to say that option 5 and 7 are possible in germany as well, but because of our laws concerning weapons (heck, you need a permit for a pocket knife ourdays.) they are just so unlikely I didn't list them.
The problem, quite obviously is option 7. The weak link isn't really the law that permits the first guy to carry a gun. The problem is that a person in fear without enough facts to make an intelligent decision has lethal force readily available. And that is the case not only because the law permits him to, but because he knows that the law permits everyone else to have it as well. Once people know walking through a certain area can become deadly they will act with lethal force with much less reluctance simply out of the desire to protect themselves.

Another point that is to be considered is the accident because of availability factor. In a country where guns are allowed, people will at one point or another become careless. Usually just a few, but thats enough. Once that happens, guns end up in the wrong hands. And by that I do not mean criminals, but, for instance, children who just want to have a look. Or teenagers who get picked on in school and believe a gun will make that stop. Or unsure adults who just want to feel more powerful and get drunk. The list goes on.

Bottomline, gun laws may not cause crime, but they sure have the potential for a much more lethal society and everyday life. Therefore, I am against gun laws and against the (in my perception unnecessary, but thats for germany) desire to protect oneself. I would much rather live in a society where crime happens but usually ends without loss of life, than one where crime happens a but less, but ends lethal most of the times. Even if gun laws did lower crimes rates (And as I said, I do not know, and I neither advocate not question that statement beyond what I already did) they sure do raise the bodycount.

In an effort to define through context "perpetuating itself," I'll address the "Yeshua philosophy" example.

That particular philosophy has partially perpetuated itself. Some traits remained the same, while others changed with time or with understanding.

Beaumis:

I'll grant you that less guns being available overall may lead to less crime-related deaths. However, what about rape, or assault, or kidnapping and torture where the offender has the advantage of disparity of force? What about military genocide against an unarmed portion of the population (something that is happening in the world today)? These are things that cannot be prevented by an unarmed population.

The leading mechanical means of death in the US is automobile accidents ("mechanical" meaning one that isn't organic, like heart disease, liver failure, or any number of other health-related issues). Automobiles are inherently dangerous... asides from their pollution effects and what they're doing to the world economy, the normal means of operation of the vehicles themselves consists of taking a couple of tons of metal and sending it whizzing around on concrete at high speeds while avoiding many other hunks of metal with people in them.

Cars are legal here. The assumption is that anyone who's old enough and capable of passing a test that examines their familiarity with traffic laws and their competence at handling a vehicle should be able to operate the vehicle without being a menace to the general public.

The basis of your arguement seems to be that you're not passing a value judgement on gun owners themselves, but simply drawing on the assumption that if there's a lot less guns around, less people will get killed. Based on that, wouldn't it make sense to take away cars?

I'm aware that guns are "meant to kill" (ignore things like sporting firearms... most of the guns out there exist to kill things, and the sport ones can do it too), and that vehicles are not (again, ignoring what you could do if you drove your car into a crowd). This is not a "value judgement" on cars, or guns, at all. The fact is, however, that cars kill an awful lot of people every year, and you could use your arguement to say that disallowing cars would lower the bodycount, which would (in the end) be a good thing.

The thing is, though... the government generally trusts us to drive cars with minimal amounts of evaluation of the skill or suitability of the driver. There's essentially no required training in place to prove that the driver the state is licensing knows how to drive properly in all of the situations he's going to encounter, that he knows how to properly maintain his car so that it doesn't become a road hazard, and that the driver is mentally ready for the responsibility of having the keys to a multi-ton weapon. This gets an awful lot of people killed, but not so many that society as a whole sees the need to implement more strict testing requirements to increase the percentage of qualified drivers on the road. People who do kill with a vehicle through their own negligence or neglect (that is, they have "an accident") are often times held financially responsible, but rarely face criminal charges.

Essentially, the citizenry feels that despite the dangers posed by some drivers and the overall increase in risk brought on by vehicles, it's condescending for the state to tell the average, safe citizen that they cannot drive a car because other people cause harm with them through their failings.

I feel the same way about weapons, be they firearms or otherwise. I am offended by gun laws that restrict what I can legitimately own or carry in an attempt to reduce crime and deaths because the implication is that somehow, my ownership of a firearm puts others at an unacceptable level of risk for criminal misuse of my firearm. Rather than giving a citizen the benefit of the doubt as we do with so many other things that kill more people a year than guns (like driving, their diets, or their lack-of-exercise programs), gun laws say to me "we may trust you to drive a deadly weapon around at high speeds without killing anyone, but just can't bring ourselves to believe that you wouldn't become a criminal if you had a gun on your belt." It's insulting.

What we think of as democratic societies exist because at their core is the assumption that the citizens of the society are not inherently criminal, and can make good decisions. The decision of the society to trust it's law-abiding, responsible citizens with the option of owning firearms should be made with the same thinking that guided the decision of the society to trust it's law-abiding, responsible citizens to drive a much more dangerous implement: cars. Both are, in the end, objects, and it's the human element that leads these objects to cause harm.

Political or philosophical discussions aside, the dude was just a big dick and it's a shame people were hurt or killed by this dick. technically dildo is more appropriate i think. [dildo: dick without a brain attached]

Let me say this....

My comment about wishing that JesterX found himself in a firefight was in poor taste. I've had a few hours to reflect on it.

I still haven't changed my opinion. I feel that everyone who wishes to restrict the rights of others to defend themselves should find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves, and lack the ability to do so.

It's a right of choice. Jester wants me to have no choice. I want to have a choice, and I want Jester to have the choice. I want the choice to learn how, when, and where to operate a firearm. I want Jester to have the choice to choose not to.

That's okay, buddy. The way I see it, if you choose not to, and you live in the U.S.A., you MAY be lucky enough to be near someone who made the choice to do so. That person then saves your life. If you're in Canada... Tough shit. Maybe the cops will show up


You see, I see it as responsibility of everyone sane and without a history of violent crime to defend themselves, their family, and their community (everyone else), in that order.

The police don't have that responsibility. Their responsibility is strictly to enforce the laws and capture the lawbreakers for punishment. Think about that...

The police do not have your safety as a primary concern. Their primary concern is the capture and punishment of criminals.


So, yeah. Between the po-lice and myself, I'd rather rely on myself to defend myself.



Give you an example. There's a guy that my uncle hired to mow his grass, once. A bit of a vagrant, tends to be a bit unshaven, and yes, african-american.

He woulden't stop coming back. Made up ridiculous stories to my uncle, got my uncle to lend him money. Still woulden't stop. One day he came to the door and said he was gonna mow the grass again. I didn't know what to do, I didn't think my uncle was home. He woulden't stop mowing the grass, and to be quite frank, I was afraid of him. I knew someone who was murdered in her own home by a vagrant she had hired to do lawnwork for her once.

So I called the cops, told them, and went upstairs to hole up in my uncle's bedroom. There I found him, told him what had happened, he told me to call the cops back and tell them not to come.

I did. I told them my uncle had come home, and wanted this situation handled without the police. They said no problem.

The cops never showed up, and they had about five minutes to do so. The police station is literally within eyesight of my home, just up the street.


What could an armed agressor have done in those five minutes if he'd been determined? He could easily have killed me. And we don't even know when the po-lice WOULD have shown up.


Next day. He comes back, and is getting agitated this time, because he wants to talk to my uncle about getting more money. Now I'm really scared, because I can see he's got something in his pocket - could have been a billfold, could have been a pocket knife, could have been anything. I told him my uncle would be back soon, he said he'd come back shortly.

I ran straight upstairs to my uncle's bedroom - he wasen't home - and shut the door, then loaded the shotgun. I waited there, patiently, until my uncle returned. (I phoned him about where I'd be.) He came upstairs, announced himself to me before he came up the stairs, opened the door, we unloaded the gun and put it back.

I had put myself in a more-or-less barricaded position with a loaded firearm with which to defend myself in about four minutes. And I wasen't (then) familar with where my uncle kept the guns and the ammo. Now I am, and I reckon I could be up and ready in under two.



Am I dangerous?

I don't think so. My family knows that if they know I should be here and I'm not, to yell out for me. I could just be on the hopper or anything. If I hear someone coming up the stairs, I'm to yell "Who the hell is it!?" to which they reply with their full name - and vice versa.

I didn't load a gun, go to the door, wave it at him and tell him to get lost. I went to a defended position and waited there until help arrived. (Had I not been able to contact my uncle, I would have called the police next.)

That is what a responsible gun-owner does. He or she takes him or herself, and any other family members, into a defensible position, arms, and waits for help to show up. If someone tries to bust down the door or otherwise gain entry to the locked bedroom, they challenge. ((The bit where I yell out with "Who the hell is it?!" )) If it's not family or friends or police, you tell them to get the hell our of your house, but you stay where you are.


If they try to get in, you shoot. It's that simple.

Yes, I believe it's a sad thing to have to end a human's life. But I think it would be a hell of a lot sadder to let someone else end yours, or that of your family, or even that of someone you don't know. Agression should be met with unyielding self-defense. Their right to life ends when they threaten to or attempt to end someone else's. Any continued living on their part is generosity on the part of society at large and the potential victim in specific.

It works the same way with concealed carry. You pray to God (or whatever you believe in, or firmly hope with an ethical morality if you don't believe in any higher powers like me) that you don't have to ever use that piece in defense of yourself or others, but you best be rock-solid in your commitment to do so when it becomes called for.

Me? I don't carry. I'm not confident enough yet in my level of training to do so, and in the state I live in (aka the State of Hysteria), it's not worth trying to get the permits and such. I may move at some point, I may not. I don't yet own a gun, but I know where my families' are in the event I need to get to them while I'm at home.

So, again. Am I dangerous? Do I need to be locked away?

I don't want JesterX to answer, since we already know his stance, though I'm sure he will reply. That's fine, that's cool. I'm all about freedoms of choice - the choice to be a responsible gun-user, the choice to rely on them for your own protection. The choice to be a douchebag, and the choice to turn the other cheek. The choice of choice. The only choice I'm against is the choice to take other people's choices. Have I used the word choice enough in this paragraph?

I regret that my name is attached to all of this.

Hi there.

I'm canadian, from quebec. Let me say that I was somewhat surprised about the difference of opinions ( I mean, how we feel about guns here in Canada, compared to you guys in USA ) about guns.

Here, we thinks guns are dangerous. Really. We *dont* want them. 99.9% of the time, guns arent needed. Unfortunately, there are time ( like yesterday ) when it would have been a good idea to carry one, but lets not think about that.

IMO, you only 'need' a gun to defend yourself if the other guy has a gun too. With good gun control, you dont even need to defend yourself with a gun, because the other guy doesnt have one either.

Yes, guns can be used for self-defense. But if we allow guns, then it becomes easier for *everyone else* to get them too. Criminality would at least double... think about it : for every guy who would uses a gun for self-defense, at least two would use one for attacking or w/e. And then? More criminality means more ppl will want to buy a gun for defence... etc. This never ends.

Anyway... our opinions are so differents... I can tell you, if everyone was allowed to get a gun tommorow in Canada, we wouldnt say 'yes, finally! I can defend myself!' but we would say ' Oh noes, now the bad guys are gonna get more guns'

By the way, I hope everyone here is safe...

The only way to prevent guns from being in the hands of criminals is to destroy every gun in existance, destroy every gun-making faccility in existance, destroy every machine shop in existance, destroy every book and internet article on guns in existance, kill every gun-maker in existance, kill every gun-user in existance, and kill everyone who thinks about re-inventing them. In short, we'd go back to swords and crossbows.


Why is that? Because there will always be guns in the criminals' hands. Peroid, end, full stop.

Let's just say there's a big cultural difference between the States and Quebec, and leave it at that.

Please, let's not turn this thread into one of those neverending debates.