Guns, Guns Guns

[dUSt]

One time I shot a bottle cap off the side of a shed from about 100' away with a BB gun.

[Paladin D]

I chose the 2nd option.

[_bc]

How would you go about disarming the US of non-hunting weapons?

Slowly.

First, stop any new sales to civilians. There aren't that many manufacturers of assault weapons, their sales can easily be stopped. Second, confiscate and destroy weaponry belonging to anyone involved in crime. Third, offer a modest price for used assault weapons to give people an incentive to get rid of their guns (this, for a start, will give addicts an alternative way of getting money out of their guns).

But I agree that the process of disarming is a huge problem.

Somebody said the NRA shouldn't campaign against restrictions on armor piercing bullets etc. I think they should start by not campaigning any more against restrictions on sales of guns to parties to civil wars.

[jasJis]

I believe in leaving the choice to be armed up to law abiding citizens. I belive in reasonable restrictions. If you really belive complete disarmament is valid and reasonable, I suggest you try the following challenge.

Make two large signs, bout 3' x 4'. Paint "This homeowner does not belive in guns and this household is verifed as Gun Free. Trespassors WILL NOT be shot!" Erect one in your front yard and one in your back yard. Wait six months and post your opinion then.

If you still feel disarmament is valid, I will certainly respect your opinion then. Currently you do benefit from the protection of thieves not really being sure if you have a gun inside your house or not. The object of the sign is to remove that fear from a thief's mind and observing the consequences.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

jasJis you crack me up! B)

[jasJis]

I am really serious about the sign thing. The funny thing I wanted to post was that DJ wasn't getting the tank untill he had the Camero running to your satisfaction..

[Kilroy the Ninja]

ROTFCMS!!!!

That's rolling on the floor clutching my sides.....

[_bc]

I believe in leaving the choice to be armed up to law abiding citizens.  I belive in reasonable restrictions.  If you really belive complete disarmament is valid and reasonable, I suggest you try the following challenge. 

Make two large signs, bout 3' x 4'.  Paint "This homeowner does not belive in guns and this household is verifed as Gun Free.  Trespassors WILL NOT be shot!"  Erect one in your front yard and one in your back yard.  Wait six months and post your opinion then.

If you still feel disarmament is valid, I will certainly respect your opinion then.  Currently you do benefit from the protection of thieves not really being sure if you have a gun inside your house or not.  The object of the sign is to remove that fear from a thief's mind and observing the consequences.

What you are pointing out, is that if guns are freely available, many people will be compelled to get them by the fact that others have them too. Pretty similar to how Israel having WMDs leads to the rest of the Middle East spending their tax revenue on stupid weaponry too, just to counter the threat. It's not an argument against arms control, nor is your silly story an argument against gun control.

[_bc]

Do you think it's a good idea to shoot trespassers?

[Don John of Austria]

Not reallyBc--- people seem to think guns kill people more than say a sword which is utterly ludicrus, I assure you a 4 foot peice of steel capable of shearing through bone, and musle with ease kills people just as dead as a .45. No guns are equalizers they make the 100 lb women with no combat training other than a couple of days at the range able to defeat me a 230lb man with a significant amount of martial training just by pionting and shooting. if there where no guns available to civilians at all then criminals would get them from the third world, but even if they didn't you would still give them an edge, how many here think they could wake up from a dead sleep and fight off( ie defeat) say for young strong, men armed with machetes and tire irons, before they were able to take someone you love ( child or spouse) hostage, Now replay that same scenerio with a modern firearm, pistol shotgun or semi-auto carbine. That right there is why gun control is absurd.

As I said the people of switzerland all have selective fire weapons in there house( selective fire means being capable of fully automatic fire) and ammo for the same, some also have RPG's and antitank missles( probable sholderlaunched anti aircraft missles two but I don't know that for sure) They are required to have them by law. Isreal too has legalized ownership of automatic firearms, I have been told that any Isreally citizen if he feels in danger can simply go checkout a gun at the localpolice/or military station. Switzerland has almost no crime of any kind, and Isreal has very little violent crime that is not politically motivated( which would happen regardless of gun laws just look at northern Ireland. Violence is a cultural thing not a matter of what weapons are avialable.

If some one comes for my Guns they better be prepared to take them one bullet at a time.

[jasJis]

_bc,

Where did you get the idea of freely avialable guns? I tried to clearly indicated the point I was making, but I'll restate it.

Guns should be available to lawabiding citizens. I don't think that is 'freely available'. And what does that have with compelling anyone to get guns because their neighbor has one? Guns are 'freely' avialable now. Are you compelled to get a gun just because your neighbor has one? It's illegal possesion and the potential for others to use illegal methods to harm you or take your property that compell others to defend themslves. Not the fact that other law abiding people have guns.

I don't think it's a silly 'story' either. It's a concrete test to experience the reality of 'mandatory disarmament' and gun control. Two totally different things.

As far as shooting a trespassor, that's too ambiguous of a question. No, I would not automatically shoot a trespassor just for trespassing. But if that trespassor was providing reason for me to fear harm to myself or my family, I would use whatever legal means available to me to defend myself, including lethal force. I don't have a single material possesion that I would harm anyone to keep, but if someone was in my house stealing the TV, I already know they aren't operating on reasonable moral principles regarding property rights and they would not get the benefit of the doubt when considering if they respect my right to not be harmed.

[Don John of Austria]

Well I guess JasJis has it over me because I have several material possesions I would not hesitate to shoot some one over, it has nothing to do with their monetary value, but their sentemental value to me, or their very real importance in my life ---such as my car. ( Houstons public transportation is a joke) At any rate, anyone in my house who I don't know, and doesn't have my premission to be there is getting Shot, oh well, they made their choice.

Now BC it seems to me your arguements really have nothing to do with Gun control---- Lets say there where no guns, that all the peoples of the world got to gether and destroyed all of them and that like fuedal Japan ownership of one was immediate death with no appeal( that should stop anyone from making one) now would you then support longbow control, advocate a limit on the draw wieght of crossbows, say what swords could be used, limit he lenght of someones rapier or outlaw rapiers all together as their only use is to kill( a rapier can only really take the combatant out of the man by striking a fatal blow) Would only the military and law enforcement be able to train with certian weapons to make sure that" law enforcement "was able to defend themselves. What is the differance between these things and what you propose except for the accident of technology. You propose a significantly more oppressive government than say Medieval England where peasents where required to keep armour ( if they could afford it) a Longbow and practice with it after Mass on Sunday ( which the State provided a range for) and required to keep a light hand weapon ---all ready for combat. They were not worried about the masses being armed --why are you.

[Winchester]

bc,

Those who own assault rifles are closely monitored. The average civilian cannot own an assault rifle. Perhaps you are applying the term to include high capacity semi-automatic rifles, which is an incorrect usage. Assault weapons are rarely used to kill, as compared with other weapons, which are more easily accessible. It would be better (from a statistical standpoint) to stop the sale of shotguns and pistols.

Trespassers: It depends on the situation.

I shoud point out that turning in guns will also give addicts incentive to steal guns from law abiding citizens, unless you want to run expensive and time-consuming serial number checks while the addicts wait around (not likely on either end).

Were guns placed under tighter restrictions, knowing my history, I would hope citizens would buy illegal weaponry, and more powerful weaponry, including grenade launchers and other heavy weapons. Such actions taken by governments have in the past been precursors to oppression. I don't believe in disarming the populace. An armed populace is a deterent to internal and external military threats.

[_bc]

1. It is a lot easier to run from someone wieldinga 4 foot sword than it is to run from somebody with a gun. Try doing a driveby with a machete. Police would be infinitely safer on the streets if they didn't have to worry about suspects carrying guns. I could go on ad nauseam.

2. I'm tempted to ask: how the fork do you manage to let the idea of killing trespassers - or anybody else, for that matter - coexist with your religion?

3. True, a 100 pound woman can kill anybody with a gun. Even children can kill people with a gun, easily too. That's really the core of the problem, not justification for widespread gun ownership. A woman can also neutralize an attacker with a stun gun or pepper spray, but you won't see many lives lost that way.

4. It's amazing how more than half the countries in the world are liberal democracies, yet none seem to have populations that are as heavily armed as the US. Even the Swiss don't have as many guns as the US (27% of households vs. 39% of US households). Incredible that, considering how unarmed populaces allegedly invite oppression.

5. Where did I get the idea of freely available guns? Are you serious? How's about the percentage I quoted in 4?

[IcePrincessKRS]

2. I'm tempted to ask: how the fork do you manage to let the idea of killing trespassers - or anybody else, for that matter - coexist with your religion?

Here's how:

If someone is breaking into your home, its more than likely that they are also armed. It is perfectly acceptable to use force in self defense, and in the defense of your family. That force may also lead to the death of said intruder, but that is an effect which must be risked. The objective isn't to just wantonly murder the intruder but to defend self and family, which is perfectly acceptable. The death is not directly intended, though it is a known possibility, and therefore TOLERATED should death occur.

Note that this is in the case of an intruder, someone who one would consider a threat, not some Joe-schmoe walking down the street who steps on your front lawn, thus "trespassing," to let the lady with the stroller go past on the sidewalk. Nobody (at least nobody with sound morals and half a brain) is going to whip out his shotgun to kill the guy who stepped on the grass. I think in every instance Don John and others have mentioned shooting at an intruder it has been just that sort of case--someone breaking and entering, a definate threat to the welfare of the one's family and oneself.

Maybe my statements here are a little garbled, so to further clarify exactly what I am staying I'll quote the Catechism.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.