"Gun town U.S.A." Not a murder in 25 years!!!

Yeah, but pimpin' is hard. You'lls gotta be prepared.

 

for the record,all my guns are stored unloaded and locked away.. as i have already said, guns are tools for hunting,putting down livestock and on the rare occasion maybe killing something after my livestock..

the thought of using my guns for personal protection doesnt even cross my mind to be truthful.i have two very large aggressive dogs and one tough ass old lady for that..

the exception being playing out some kind of mad max scenario in my head,but thats more just a passing what if type thought..

that being said,if someone feels the need to own a gun for the specific purpose of personal protection i see nothing wrong with it.. rich people hire armed guards to protect them even tho there are police to do that job..

why is it OK for the rich and famous to have armed body guards even tho the chances of them being harmed is slim to none but its not OK for your average joe who cant afford armed guards to arm himself for the same reasons?

 

Sometimes in a home invasion, it is not possible to run away and in your own home, if you own a gun, it is probably at hand. At this point you are not being "lazy" and there not many other options. What do you do? You have already called the police but they are not there yet and you don't hear any sirens.

So guess my questions to you are:
Why do these criminals have the "right" to break into your home?

Why do they have the "right" to protect themselves behind the barrel of a gun?

Why do you have no "right" to protect your family and yourself?

 

i cant answer that because i dont need a gun to make me feel safe. perhaps you should find someone who feels that way to answer that..

 

Um, a gun in your home is probably not at hand. There are laws that require you to keep and store guns locked away, and the ammo must be placed in a separate room from the gun, also locked away.

Not exactly accessible in a sudden situation.

When did I say that someone had no rights to defend themselves? Or are you asking rhetorical questions.

 

Thank you Bill.

 

Where in the world did you get the notion a gun is suppose to make you feel safe?

A gun is just a gun.

I have baseball bat but it doesn't make me feel safe! It just makes me feel good when I get a good hit when I’m playing baseball.

But if someone was attacking me, in my own home and I could get my hands on that bat I would probably try and hit a home run with his head.

I didn’t buy it out of fear, I brought it to play Baseball. I didn’t buy it to feel safe, I brought it to play Baseball. I didn’t buy it for self defense, I brought it to play Baseball. I didn’t buy it just in case of a home invasion, I brought it to play Baseball.

But if I was attacked and it was near, I might just use it to defend myself.

So why aren’t you talking about my baseball bat?

Oooh, he has a lethal weapon in his house. He bought it out of fear. Just having it he’s condoning violence. I bet he’s got so he can do policing of others on a whim. I bet he feels free to use that bat on others as protection. He has no right even to own such a lethal weapon. He says it’s just for playing baseball but I know better. The world would a better place only if people didn’t own baseball bats. Etc.

 

Perhaps this is true in Canada, maybe even in a few states here but not in all states. I believe that in a few states you could sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow, although I wouldn’t recommend it.

You did say this.

Which seems to indicate that you at least don’t think a person should defend himself with a gun even if a criminal was to attack you with one.

You also said this:

And what do most people consider self defense to be but responding to violence with violence.

 

that's insane. i wonder why that is.

 

that's cool, but i think weapons in the home are an outcome of how we live in society, not a cause of how we live in society. this is where we're seeing guns in a different perspective. it really does seem to be one of those cultural concepts that's hard for each other to grasp and it's further hindered by the expectation of language and cultural histories. you can't ask an american how they feel about something an expect them to answer with the mindset of a canadian or brit.

 

People are saying how much they would rather buy a gun to protect and defend themselves in a house intruder type situation because the police don't arrive soon enough and wish to use a gun in self defense as a safety issue.

That's what we've been talking about for awhile now. LOL.

 

FFS. Show me where I said that people have no right to defend themselves. You can't, because I never said it. No offense, but I'm finished debating with you. Thanks for the discussion.

 

Yep. I really didn't want to be dragged into this debate again. I've said my peace many times before. I just see the whole issue from a different angle, doesn't make my opinions or yours any less valuable.

This kind of discussion has a tendency to pull us all off into different directions and I find that talking about gun ownership with Americans to be like, talking about religion or homosexuality. Which is probably why I feel the need to give a little different perspective, balance some of loud noise and send out a voice of peace and understanding to some of the consequences that guns have left us in this world. But I don't expect to change someone's view at all.

I just think it's important to show someone the other mindset, ya know? Even if it's not accepted.

 

You're welcome.

I already showed you what you said, you can deny it if you wish.

I'm not offended, you're free to do what ever you wish in this matter.

Go in peace and may you never need to defend your family or yourself,
OWB

 

:cheers2: we'll leave the fighting to the boys. *insert feminist sexism tone here*

 

While I know Aristartle has left the discussion, I feel this comment should be addressed.

Maybe this is what Aristartle has been talking about but not what everybody has been talking about.

I believe if you polled those on this thread, that own a gun and asked them why they own a gun, very few would say that they bought it to feel safe or for home protection. From the comments that have been made most have said for hunting and that self or home protection was an after thought.

As for what I’ve been talking about; it is whether gun ownership is a right or not and whether gun ownership should still be permitted or not.

If everybody hasn’t guessed already; I believe it is a right and should still be permitted.

 

Mama

"As in - look I’ve got a gun I can defend myself and my property, why should I pay so much in taxes to a ‘blotted’ police force – anyway there’s not much crime around here it’s over in the black areas of town and why should I pay to have police down there, hell if those people want to kill each other let them, if they come up here, I’ve got my gun, just let them try anything. We only need enough police to contain the violence in those areas any more is a waste. "

But the problem is that in the absence of differing viewpoints it can seem valid, you just seem to be opting out and Mad actually show interest in it.

I mean you keep saying that you haven’t a clue what to do and apparently you’re not going to even bother to try, however you do seem to believe that guns are in some way a help, a good thing for your society in some way that you don’t seem able to explain. What are your views on taxes?

Anyway that leaves things open to other peoples agendas, like the one I’ve described and Mad’s reply to them seemed very much like tentative support –

 

OWB

The way you are willing to dismiss the US’s cultural heritage and some of the major themes in American history (independence, slavery, western expansion, industrialisation) as irrelevances only it seems to score a cheap point in an internet forum, just says it all.

You’re not genuinely interested in a debate.

So far you posts have consisted of smart arse remarks and rather pointless jibs, in sum a total a waste of time.

You’re not interested in honest discussion because you’re too desperate to get one over, to score a point, win a victory.

For example I asked a question of and you still haven’t answered but you scream for me to answer a question you’ve put even when I’ve already given an answer (post 96) around when you first asked me.

 

Here is another example of you not genuinely engaging but just trying to score some point

I’d said -

In the US there seems to have been a collective shrug of the shoulders, an acceptance that ‘these things happen’. In Germany on the other hand it seems to have caused a bout of national soul searching, questions are being asked about their society (on the radio last night a German commentator was wondering if German society was too competitive and overly stressful for young people) and solutions are being sort, gun control yes, but lots of other things such as putting money into counselling services and other social programmes.

And you come back with the argument that Alabama’s not very near to you (it seems emotionally as well in distance).

This is pure and simple point scoring not a valid contribution.

The distance from Colorado to Alabama is only 1,122 miles, I’ve travelled a number of times (overland and a couple of times hitch hiking) from Greece to the UK a distance of 1, 486 miles. Hell I used to regularly hitch to the south of France, but that’s only 600 miles, oh and I was in Malaga only recently but that’s only 1050 miles away.

(I thought the US was the home of epic road trips and people zipping here and there)

And anyway in these days of modern communications distance is nothing, I’m talking to you from nearly 5000 miles away.

**

The shootings in Bavaria, a southern state of the Federal Republic of Germany involved German citizens and has affected the German people, OWB seems to be implying that what happened in a southern state of the United States of America didn’t involve Americans, no, it was only Alabamans, and so was of no real relevance to Americans.

That attitude to me is very much like a shrug of the shoulders and an acceptance that ‘these things happen’ with a bit of - who cares what happens to Alabama thrown in.

 

Mad

(And by the way thank you, you seem to be the only person here that is trying to debate reasonably)

That is debatable (lol, I’m a lefty so I’m going to contend that, you’d really have to be more specific, please start a thread on say ‘good right wing ideas’ or something)

In this thread my point, as I’ve said many times is that the promoter’s of guns (seemingly as a way of dealing with societal problems, like crime) don’t seem to have any alternative ideas or if they do seem to be refusing to talk about them.

On the few occasions I’ve got them to talk (usually reluctantly) their ideas seem ill thought through or seemed designed to make a bad situation worse (e.g. cutting welfare and social programmes) and couldn’t defend their views from criticism.

The only thing they seemed interested in was promoting guns often repeating the same stuff over and not answering questions or showing any willingness to debate.

*

Both use the supposed data on violence – one to promote gun ownership the other as an indication of societal problems.

One is the promotion of the fear of being attacked, the promotion of the idea that an attack will happen, often among groups and individuals that are the least at risk. They imply that a gun can deal with these problems from an individual stand point, (and often comes associated with the idea that nothing much else can be done).

For example

The other sees the violence as a communal problem as much a problem to those that are least effected as to those that are. Their aims are to find solutions to the problems not ignore them or shrug their shoulders and decide nothing could be done anyway.

As I’ve said it seems to come down to mentality and attitudes.

*

Nuclear weapons?

Has anyone, and I mean anyone, the right to own a weapon, even a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon?

If there is any reason whatsoever for not giving someone the right to own their own weapon of mass slaughter then it would seem to me that the philosophical and natural right argument doesn’t seem to stand up.

Because if some people are limited and others not then weapon ownership isn’t a natural ‘right’ it is a humanly designated privilege.

I mean people talk of the ‘natural right’ to ‘freedom’, liberty or life, yet laws and regulations limit peoples freedom of action the breaking of which can result in a persons liberty been taken away and in some places their life.

In fact there are gun control laws in many US states to limit gun availability to convicted criminals and the mentally unbalanced. Are you saying you would allow such people access to any type of weapon they’d want?

So it comes down to a matter of law and laws change, the right to do something or have something or not, comes down to the acceptance of that right to be allowed. It was a white person’s right to own black slaves in many states in 18th -19th century America, because those places saw the practice as acceptable.

My point being that mentalities and attitudes toward some subjects can change.