Well, as far as the break-in question is concerned, you really can't give a good answer for that.
If the guy came in with a gun, and I was able to get to mine without him knowing about it, then I'm pretty damn confident that I would be able to kill him long before he saw it coming. After all, I know my house better than he does. And I also keep my ammo in my rifle case, which is under my bed, so I'd have that loaded in a jiff.

As for the VA shooting - I think that if one or more students had a gun, then yes, it could have ended a lot better. But no, I am by no means suggesting that students carry weapons to school.

Finally, no, anarchic countries are not well served by citizen militia, because they fear no consequences for any of their actions, at least none that would come from government.

A counter argument can be made that lawful possession of firearms can allow people to commit heinous acts in the first place. The VA killer legally attained his glock, so did the shooter at Dawsons College in Montreal, many crimes committed are committed using guns one legally possesses.

I mean you ever been to the hood? Gun store, liquor store, gun store, liquor store. Gun possession in the ghetto is the reality of the life there, due to social and economic circumstances, anyone saying otherwise should take a drive to Imperial courts in LA.

With regards to a armed militia watching against a unlawful overtake of the government I would like to hear one example when this actually happened? I don't see the Michigan Militia fighting against the tyranny of Bush.

I doubt VA would have been better with more people with guns, young people are hormonal and unstable as it is. I mean Gunrock can say that because well he was in a war, he knowns about watching background, crossfire, proper aim and so on. Most kids, they wouldn't put in the time for that, and would rather go to the shooting range to pop guns like they were gangsta. I think we would alot of people shooting each other and no the shooter.

I still don't understand why people want to possess fully automatic military grade rifles for personal use?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^ so true.

Prohibiting small objects like guns is as futile as alcohol/drug prohibition.

Even if we could agree that it would be a good thing if everyone were unarmed, that would be moot because attempted prohibition would be as unsuccessful as the drug war. It's much better to keep guns in the hands of sane, responsible, trained citizens. Even in states with right-to-carry laws, there is usually a requirement of a training course and a totally clean criminal record to get a permit. So it's not just the wild west... People have to sort of know what they're doing to get a permit.

The problem is, that these statements are emotive- based on gut feeling and not backed by any stats or logic.

Here are the stats and facts to back it up:
* Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

* Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:



"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)



* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

Florida's murder rate decreased by 36% from the time this law was passed to 9 years later.

* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)


* Only 1.5% of fatal accidents in the US in 1995 involved firearms.


So... I will defend the 2nd amendment, though I never have owned a gun.

I still don't understand why people want to possess fully automatic military grade rifles for personal use?


Perhaps to be on equal footing with the regular forces, so a government can't stomp all over the people? Perhaps not to actually fight, but just to make a tyrant fear the people. If 1984 becomes reality, do you think the resistance is going to work with daggers and glocks?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't know Jwray- I have to say those stats are selective at best. What about comparing a country like Australia that has very strict gun licensing laws to a more liberal gun law society like the US?

Having lived near bad parts of LA, and near bad parts of Sydney I would take the country with less guns per capita in circulation.

When I walk into a cafe in Texas and half the good old boys are wearing side-arms, I would argue that I am less safe than I am in a cafe without the heat. (see the venn diagram above)

How many psycho slaughters is it going to take before the US realizes that guns don't kill people, people kill people - but they can do it much more efficiently with guns.

It's damn hard to accidentally kill a guy with a butter-knife, but a gun only need a single slip-up and you kid doesn't have a head.

The problems with your stats, jwray, is that people already had their guns in 1976 and they could get it in other states and smuggle them in. Just making a law will not in itself remove all the guns, the people has to accept the law, which they probably won't do very quickly, considering how many in the US argues for the guns.

I can honestly not see the rationality in the argument "I need my gun for protection" from what?

>> ^jwray:
I still don't understand why people want to possess fully automatic military grade rifles for personal use?

Perhaps to be on equal footing with the regular forces, so a government can't stomp all over the people? Perhaps not to actually fight, but just to make a tyrant fear the people. 1984 becomes reality, do you think the resistance is going to work with daggers and glocks?


A gun to make the government fear you? What kind of argument is that? Should you have a nuke too, just in case?

I got one It was called the revolutionary war fought here in America, and also the French Revolution. Oh and India's fight for independence from the British Empire. The Zulu Wars... Lets see any more?...

>> ^Farhad2000:

With regards to a armed militia watching against a unlawful overtake of the government I would like to hear one example when this actually happend?

I was thinking about this recently. A female friend of mine who's 5'3" recently got a gun.

Guys have messed with her ever since college, sometimes quite seriously, but she's much less helpless now if she hears e.g. noises on the back porch. (Yes, she's trained to use it.)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Interesting that you would cite India's fight for independence - Ghandi would disagree with your assessment.


>> ^gorgonheap:
I got one It was called the revolutionary war fought here in America, and also the French Revolution. Oh and India's fight for independence from the British Empire. The Zulu Wars... Lets see any more?...
>> ^Farhad2000:
With regards to a armed militia watching against a unlawful overtake of the government I would like to hear one example when this actually happend?

Dag, there was a big discussion on the topic here about 2 months ago where Australian violent crime statistics came up. I remember it specifically because of the odd weapon choices that took over once guns were banned. Studies conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology showed that violent crime continued to rise following the gun ban. Shooting deaths were replaced by stabbing deaths in even greater numbers, followed closely by "hands and feet" deaths. So basically, when guns were out of the picture, knives took over. When no knives were available, a good old fashioned beating/stomping did the trick. I think this, in comparison with the stats cited by jwray, show that gun legislation is aiming at symptoms and not causes. There is something else at work causing the violent crime. Taking away firearms from *everyone* in the country doesn't stop it. This is especially more relevant in the US where there is a constitutional right to own a firearm (Australia had none). It only removes protection from law abiding citizens and minorly inconviences those who already plan to violate the law.

Here is the source from which Ben Franklin cited his famous quote. I think it makes a case for private firearms ownership much more eloquently than I ever could:

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

-Cesare Beccaria

My argument for, has always been based upon a simple formula:
The current paradigm involves guns.
I have incarnated in said paradigm, into a country where gun ownership is part of a smaller juxtapositional paradigm, that having to do with my nation's history, freedom from oppression, and rights and privileges.
As long as I have this right, (regardless of laws enacted to the contrary) I will own them.
Check your history dagmar, and watch how many fascist regimes have confiscated weapons as part of a pogram or regime change-

You live in your fantasy world that has no guns, and I'll live in one more immediately associated with the obvious reality-
That little diagram speaks tomes my friend, especially the fact that the phrases, "Gun Owners" and "crazy people" are used together-

It is my concern that it's creator is somewhat..."Crazy"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Well put Lurch - and Choggie your argument makes sense.

You seem to have already made up your mind, but one statement I think you might reconsider: "In the VA school massacre, do people honestly think that if students were packing heat- that it would have ended better? Life is not a cop show."

Jerusalem yeshiva student: "I shot the terrorist twice in the head"

You can't really compare Israel to the US/World.

Every able bodied person in Israel is required to go into military service, this gives them a better grounding in the application of firearms and weapons in general. This is not the case in most western countries.

Furthermore the situation there is far more problematic because of wider social and political issues.

Gun control debate is like the debate about abortion and religion.

I'm not debating that - I agree, Israel is very different than the US, and yes, I do believe that proper training is necessary and should be mandatory for gun owners. Furthermore, the story I linked to is anecdotal at best. I'm not at all trying to argue that, if students were allowed to carry guns on campus, the VA Tech school massacre would definitely have gone differently. And of course the problem is symptomatic of much deeper sociopolitical issues. (Aren't they all?) That's not the point.

My link was in direct answer to Dag's question: "In the VA school massacre, do people honestly think..."

My answer is, yes some people do honestly think that the VA school massacre could have ended better if students had had guns, and I think it's folly not to understand people see such a story as proof that a different ending is possible at the very least, outside the realm of terrible cop movies.

"Prohibiting small objects like guns is as futile as alcohol/drug prohibition."

Bad analogy. You can't grow guns in your backyard or brew bullets in your bathtub. Cutting off the supply of guns would make a big difference. That said, I believe we should have the right to own guns.

You are wrong dystop-it is possible to make any gun yourself, and, produce the ammunition for it-just lookit these iindustrious fellows.....
http://www.videosift.com/video/Largest-illegal-black-market-of-guns-in-pakistan


and that's w/o mechanized machinist's tools

My issue with legal gun ownership?

Deaths in the home:

* "In 1991 alone, 3,247 children and teenagers were murdered and 1,436 committed suicide with guns, and 551 died in unintentional shootings, according to the National Center for Health Statistics."

* 5.1% of the deaths of 5-14yr olds, and 21% of 15-21yr olds were by firearms

* In 2002, there were 30,242 firearm-related deaths in the United States, including 17,108 (57%) suicides, 12,129 (40%) homicides (including 300 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 1,005 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.

* More than 700 women every year are shot and killed as victims of domestic violence in the United States, representing 20% of all female homicide victims.

Now I've argued with people on this before, and they've pointed at how many more people die from car accidents than firearms, while completely missing the point. You pretty much need a car to get around... you don't need a gun. Full stop.

No guns, not domestic gun deaths, no easy suicides by guns, and no children being shot. (well, nowhere near as many, look at the Australian stats on THOSE kinds of figures... we can all pick and chose our numbers you know).

I much prefer living in a society where I don't feel constantly afraid and as such feel I need a deadly weapon under my bed because I think some armed killer is going to come into my house.

I just don't feel that way and have NEVER had ANYONE I know face a gun in anger.