Do you shoot?

[Rob Wilson]

Expand the scope to accidental injuries...the marvels of modern medical support......not every time you accidently shoot a family member are you going to kill them.....and you have a better idea......

If you're going to do that, then expand the scope of "self-defense" to include the incedents where the perp takes off as soon as he realizes the defenders are armed. I would bet (and if anyone could point me to the statistics on this, I'd be eternally grateful) that the majority of armed confrontations between armed homeowners/shopkeepers and criminals ends without either side firing at the other, just the perp scared off by the sight/sound of a gun.

In which case you don't need the real thing a replica would suffice. You wouldn't be doing your own argument any favours with that line of debate.

[Rob Wilson]

Yes you have the right to life, and self-defence. You don't have the right to take someone elses life or endanger others not involved in your self-defence action. As I pointed out, a pistol is not going to help you when your opponent also has one, and the right to self-defence does not mean handguns anymore than it means Chainguns or Flamethrowers.

If I'm not permitted to use lethal force to counter the threat of lethal force, then for all intents and purposes I don't have a right to defend myself.

And that automatically entitles you to hndguns, how? A flamethrower is lethal force, have you tried explaining to the police that you're just carrying it for self-defence? And you also do not have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself unless it is the only option available to you in that situation.

A handgun isn't remotely comparable to a flamethrower, as it's virtually guaranteed to cause collateral damage. As Sea Skimmer pointed out, a handgun is the only weapon of reasonable size that doesn't rely on the physical skills or attributes of the holder. If I'm facing someone who's armed, or swings a baseball bat better than I do, or knows martial arts, or is simply faster and stronger than I am, I'm at a major disadvantage holding anything but a pistol.

ah, so your advocating handguns because they require a lack of skill, are you sure you want to pursue that line of reasoning? You may want to reword that argument.

As to the Flamethrower and guaranteed collateral damage, you have the same risk of collateral damage from a Handgun. The round going through the other guy and harming others or, if we pursue your "don't need skill" arguement, the shooter missing their target altogether and pumping out rounds all over the place in panic. The right to defend yourself, does not guarentee you the right to carry firearm, anymore than it guarente's you the right to have any other weapon of war. "Yes officer, I'm carrying this battle axe for self-defence."

In regards to the usefulness of pistols in self-defense, yes, it's true that if I wake up with the perp's weapon pointed at my ear, then a pistol will be quite useless, as will any other weapon. It's an entirely different story if I'm woken up by the sound of the back door being kicked in.

If he's kicking your door in, i doubt he's too worried about whether he wakes you or not, that tends to mean he has a weapon and will be ready to use it. Your better of escaping the house and calling the police than starting a gun battle in your house.

Or he's assuming I'm unarmed, as the majority of households are. And I live on the second floor with a concrete patio below the window and only one stairway down. "Escaping the house" is likely to break my ankle, or worse, while the sound of drawing the slide back on a 9mm would probably be enough to send the intruder on his merry way.

You want to guarntee he'll run ? i recommend you buy a security light with an IR sensor, you can even hook it up to a Light in the spare room with a start delay timer of say 2 seconds and a deactivation timer of say 10 minutes and he'll never even enter your house in the first place. And as a bonus you don't even have to get up in the middle of the night. Look, no firearms needed.

[MKSheppard]

Americans tend to buy a lot of handguns and have a lot of guns per owner (which explains why the sheer number of guns is so much higher even though the rate of gun ownership is similar), build arsenals, often with self-defense as a justification.

Uhm, can you elucidate the # of guns that an "arsenal" constitutes?

[MKSheppard]

If you do shoot, what's your family going to do while your in prison for manslaughter?

Perhaps in Britain, but here in Baltimore, MD, a guy shot FOUR COPS
who did a no-knock warrant entry into his house and walked scot-free.

[MKSheppard]

So countless you won't have a problem producing authorative figures to back that claim up? And Just how many of those clerks had a gun pointing at them when they produced their own?

Google the words

"convenience store" +shotgun

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:qH ... n&ie=UTF-8

DECATUR, Ga. (AP) When 74-year-old J.C. Adams saw three would-be robbers walk into his convenience store, he grabbed his shotgun with one hand and balanced himself on his walker with the other.

On a surveillance monitor, he saw two men and a woman hold up an employee at the cash register Thursday night. That's when Adams pushed his walker to the front of the store and confronted the armed suspects, killing one man and wounding the other. An employee held the woman until police arrived.

''No need to let something like that live,'' said Adams, who had been wounded in a May 2000 robbery attempt in which he killed another intruder.

In his 26 years as owner of the Pac A Sac, a convenience store in a middle-class suburb just off Lawrenceville Highway, Adams has been robbed 12 times. He keeps the shotgun nearby now as he watches the store monitors. The walker he uses because of a recent knee surgery.

Police said Friday that Adams would not be charged in the shooting death of Cameron Lemont Glover, 17. Glover's 19-year-old brother, Leonard, and Tammy Crystal Jones, 17, were charged with armed robbery.

Until three years ago, Adams said he kept a .38 handgun in his store, but he switched to a shotgun after yet another robbery.

''I shot at the guy and missed,'' he said. ''You can't do anything with a .38.''

Adams' defense of the store has made him a legend in the neighborhood.

''Everybody knows J.C.,'' said resident Nancy Pope. ''Obviously (robbers) don't know who they are messing with.''

Family members of the Glovers and attorneys for Leonard Glover and Jones could not be located.

[MKSheppard]

Tell me, do such incidents take the lives of more than a thousand people every single year? Because accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children. If you're going to say the former outweighs the latter, the numbers don't add up.

Yet these "children" are gangbangers as old as 21

Great way Hand Gun Control, INC et al, distort the statistics,
by counting gangbangers as "children"

[MKSheppard]

You want to guarntee he'll run ? i recommend you buy a security light with an IR sensor, you can even hook it up to a Light in the spare room with a start delay timer of say 2 seconds and a deactivation timer of say 10 minutes and he'll never even enter your house in the first place. And as a bonus you don't even have to get up in the middle of the night. Look, no firearms needed.

Wow, we have those everywhere, worth shit. All the guy has to do is look
and see that the light is IR activated. About as useful as those damn
timers for when you're away.

[Keevan_Colton]

If you do shoot, what's your family going to do while your in prison for manslaughter?

Perhaps in Britain, but here in Baltimore, MD, a guy shot FOUR COPS
who did a no-knock warrant entry into his house and walked scot-free.

Gee, is that a position in favour of guns??

[MKSheppard]

Gee, is that a position in favour of guns??

You shoot someone trying to enter your house in most of the United States,
and the case against you will be laughed out of court (except in Washington
DC, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles)

[Nathan F]

One thing I don't get are those little beeping alarms. I mean, big deal, an alarm goes off. Where I am from, by the time the police actually had a chance to get to your home, the robber would have had plenty of time to get in, get what he wants, and get out.

A pump action shotgun sound is SO much more intimidating than a little beep or siren. There is something definitely wrong with you if the sound of a little Benelli pumping a round into the chamber doesn't make you think twice about going through with your crime. And if that doesn't scare a criminal, you know that an alarm isn't. And if you have the shotgun, you have a way to defend yourself when otherwise you wouldn't.

[Keevan_Colton]

Gee, is that a position in favour of guns??

You shoot someone trying to enter your house in most of the United States,
and the case against you will be laughed out of court (except in Washington
DC, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles)

.....and this is good?
I still remember tha asshat in texas that shot a tourist who was lost and asking for directions......shooting 4 police officers......anyway.....just another reason I laugh at a lot of the american system....nevermind.....

[MKSheppard]

.....and this is good?
I still remember tha asshat in texas that shot a tourist who was lost and asking for directions......shooting 4 police officers......anyway.....just another reason I laugh at a lot of the american system....nevermind.....

OK fine, be that way, and say hello to the nice burgular who comes
in and robs you blind while you're in the house

Here in the States, we can actually fight back, and shoot, stab, or generally
beat the shit out of burgulars without fear of legal repercussions. Hey, is
it true that when you're robbed in England, the police give you a jar of
KY Jelly for the next time?

[Keevan_Colton]

.....and this is good?
I still remember tha asshat in texas that shot a tourist who was lost and asking for directions......shooting 4 police officers......anyway.....just another reason I laugh at a lot of the american system....nevermind.....

OK fine, be that way, and say hello to the nice burgular who comes
in and robs you blind while you're in the house

Fine...arent you forgetting a burglars main goal is not to kill you its to make money....really worried...get insurance....

[MKSheppard]

Fine...arent you forgetting a burglars main goal is not to kill you its to make money....really worried...get insurance....

Insurance can't replace the stuff that gets burgled, especially if it's a priceless
family heirloom. Say, have you recieved your complimentary KY Jelly
package from the local constabulary yet?

[Keevan_Colton]

Fine...arent you forgetting a burglars main goal is not to kill you its to make money....really worried...get insurance....

Insurance can't replace the stuff that gets burgled, especially if it's a priceless
family heirloom. Say, have you recieved your complimentary KY Jelly
package from the local constabulary yet?

Nope, though I sure will remember to read the pamphlet that comes with it.....

"Sentimental value of property > human life or risk thereof...."

Thank goodness we're in off topic already.....its getting hard to stray much further off.....

[Nathan F]

This is about the only situation someones put up so far that wouldcall for gun to be used. As long as you can be sure you're not going to hit someone else in the crossfire, and you know that your shot will drop the guy straight way, then you would be right to shoot him. Out of interest, there a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up the shops in your area?

No, but there's been a number of incidents in recent years of this happening and dozens of people getting killed where one civilian with a handgun might have taken down the perp immediately. For the record, I don't carry a concealed weapon and probably wouldn't apply for the liscense unless I moved into a bad neighborhood, but I know how to shoot well enough that I'd be able to fire at the perp without endangering anyone else.

Tell me, do such incidents take the lives of more than a thousand people every single year? Because accidental shootings with ordinary domestic firearms kill many more than that every year, hundreds of them children. If you're going to say the former outweighs the latter, the numbers don't add up.

That problem is easily correctible by people who own firearms being responsible and teaching their children in the proper use and instilling in them a healthy respect for firearms. I grew up in a household where guns were commonplace. My parents kept their firearms locked and out of my reach, and when I reached the age of being able to shoot, my father trained me in the proper usage of firearms. I still shoot regularly, and I have never been hurt, nor do I know anyone who has been hurt. Just about everyone I know back home owns firearms, and there hasn't been an accidental shooting in years.

If people would just use some common sense and learn how to use their firearms responsibly, then those numbers would drop to near zero.

[MKSheppard]

Nope, though I sure will remember to read the pamphlet that comes with it.....

Be sure to read the part about lubing your ass up good with the KY Jelly so
it doesn't hurt the next time you're assraped by a burgular.

"Sentimental value of property > human life or risk thereof...."

Ah I belive the convience store owner I mentioned earlier said it best:

"No need to let something like that live."

[Keevan_Colton]

Nope, though I sure will remember to read the pamphlet that comes with it.....

Be sure to read the part about lubing your ass up good with the KY Jelly so
it doesn't hurt the next time you're assraped by a burgular.

"Sentimental value of property > human life or risk thereof...."

Ah I belive the convience store owner I mentioned earlier said it best:

"No need to let something like that live."

So its more summary execution of criminals than actual self defense?
Righty-o....just so long as we're clear.

[MKSheppard]

So its more summary execution of criminals than actual self defense?
Righty-o....just so long as we're clear.

Whatever works

[RedImperator]

If I'm not permitted to use lethal force to counter the threat of lethal force, then for all intents and purposes I don't have a right to defend myself.

And that automatically entitles you to hndguns, how? A flamethrower is lethal force, have you tried explaining to the police that you're just carrying it for self-defence? And you also do not have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself unless it is the only option available to you in that situation.

A handgun isn't remotely comparable to a flamethrower, as it's virtually guaranteed to cause collateral damage. As Sea Skimmer pointed out, a handgun is the only weapon of reasonable size that doesn't rely on the physical skills or attributes of the holder. If I'm facing someone who's armed, or swings a baseball bat better than I do, or knows martial arts, or is simply faster and stronger than I am, I'm at a major disadvantage holding anything but a pistol.

ah, so your advocating handguns because they require a lack of skill, are you sure you want to pursue that line of reasoning? You may want to reword that argument.

What takes more skill? Neutralizing an intruder in hand to hand combat, combat with melee weapons, or with a pistol? "No skills" was bad wording on my part. Obviously, it takes some skill to properly use a pistol, but nothing like what other forms of self defense require. And unless you're so weak you can't hold a pistol at eye level or your nerves are so bad you can't keep a man-sized target lined up at close range, a pistol neutralizes the defender's physical disadvantages. This is especially true for women, who would more likely be smaller than the intruder (given as the vast majority are male).

As to the Flamethrower and guaranteed collateral damage, you have the same risk of collateral damage from a Handgun. The round going through the other guy and harming others or, if we pursue your "don't need skill" arguement, the shooter missing their target altogether and pumping out rounds all over the place in panic. The right to defend yourself, does not guarentee you the right to carry firearm, anymore than it guarente's you the right to have any other weapon of war. "Yes officer, I'm carrying this battle axe for self-defence."

Are you seriously suggesting a 9mm pistol round has the same capacity for accidental injury, death, and property damage as a 30 foot jet of flaming gasoline?

In regards to the usefulness of pistols in self-defense, yes, it's true that if I wake up with the perp's weapon pointed at my ear, then a pistol will be quite useless, as will any other weapon. It's an entirely different story if I'm woken up by the sound of the back door being kicked in.

If he's kicking your door in, i doubt he's too worried about whether he wakes you or not, that tends to mean he has a weapon and will be ready to use it. Your better of escaping the house and calling the police than starting a gun battle in your house.

Or he's assuming I'm unarmed, as the majority of households are. And I live on the second floor with a concrete patio below the window and only one stairway down. "Escaping the house" is likely to break my ankle, or worse, while the sound of drawing the slide back on a 9mm would probably be enough to send the intruder on his merry way.

You want to guarntee he'll run ? i recommend you buy a security light with an IR sensor, you can even hook it up to a Light in the spare room with a start delay timer of say 2 seconds and a deactivation timer of say 10 minutes and he'll never even enter your house in the first place. And as a bonus you don't even have to get up in the middle of the night. Look, no firearms needed.

This is hardly a guarantee. It'll scare off the more skittish ones, but it takes a certain amount of bravado to enter someone else's home uninvited in the middle of the night to begin with. As Shep pointed out, IR detectors are easy to recognize, and even if you can't find the detector, what's to stop someone from setting the sensor off, running to hide in he bushes, watching the house for any activity, and then when the light goes off, approaching the door again to see if the light goes on at the exact same moment it did previously? Most people know there are devices that turn lights on when people approach an entry way. Putting the light inside the house while the detector stays outside is a clever variation, but it's by no means foolproof.

Expand the scope to accidental injuries...the marvels of modern medical support......not every time you accidently shoot a family member are you going to kill them.....and you have a better idea......

If you're going to do that, then expand the scope of "self-defense" to include the incedents where the perp takes off as soon as he realizes the defenders are armed. I would bet (and if anyone could point me to the statistics on this, I'd be eternally grateful) that the majority of armed confrontations between armed homeowners/shopkeepers and criminals ends without either side firing at the other, just the perp scared off by the sight/sound of a gun.

In which case you don't need the real thing a replica would suffice. You wouldn't be doing your own argument any favours with that line of debate.

This is true in a gun owning society, where more likely than not the sound of a slide being drawn back or a hammer being cocked means there's someone else in the building with a lethal weapon in hand. The trick isn't too effective in a country where firearms ownership is strictly limited (bluffing does you no good if the other guy knows you're got a shit hand)and both perp and homeowner know that the homeowner will probably face criminal charges if he discharges a firearm in self defense (so even if it is a real gun, it's probably illegal and he'll probably be too scared of serving jail time to use it even if his life is in danger).

As for the other reason why a replica is an inferior alternative, Perinquus already posted the numbers of criminals killed or wounded in the act by civilians with firearms in this country. Yes, as Darth Wong pointed out, some of them were undoubtedly shot in the back as they fled or after they surrendered (hazards of the trade, in my opinion, but certainly dishonorable), but a good many others were shot and killed while they represented an active danger to the life of the gunowner and/or the gunowner's loved ones. Actually shooting someone ought to be the very last resort, but it still should be an option if it comes down to a matter of living or dying.

Incedently, this has probably been the most civil debate on gun control I've ever been involved in, and it's still getting nowhere. I think what it's coming down to is that Britons, Canadians, the rest of the Commonwealth, and Americans all simply have different philosophies and attitudes about the issue, and it's not going to be settled between them no matter how long they debate about it.

[Utsanomiko]

I received a Winchester Model 70 6mm (yse, I know, .243, silly American numbers) bolt-action rifle and a scope (forget the make, but it's pretty high-end) for my highschool graduation last year. I must say it it is absolutely gorgeous. The stock is really the cream of the crop, with very subtle and smooth grain, a slightly reddish-colored finnish and a semigloss varnish.

All I need to do is add a 1/4" plastic plate to the shoulder stock (the length-of-pull isn't exactly up to length for my long arms), and fire five more rounds and clean it to break it in, and it's perfect. I don't have any picturys of the occasion I got it but I can assure you it's a beautiful work of machining and art.

Maybe I'll post one next weekend. They don't show off the gun that much, though. This one is really close, though minus the sling:


I'm itching to eventually get a remake of the Winchester '87 lever-action 12 guage shotgun being made by Tristar (or somesuch company that's basing it on a scaled-down version of the 1910 10-guage version of the '87), becasue I'm just that kinda guy. A Model 1300 Defender 8-shot would be useful, and I'm still keeping my eyes peeled for some nice handguns (my father has a Walter PPK that's just to sweet for words ).
Personally, I'd feel more uncomfortable with a dull sword on the wall than an unloaded gun. Those replica weapons can still hurt, ya know.[/img]

[Perinquus]

What moral objection is there to a deactivated firearm? Especially when it's being used purely decoratively. It's a lump of metal and wood, somehow i doubt it objects one way or the other.

I hate the idea of taking a perfectly good firearm, that might give its owner a great deal of enjoyment at the range, and cutting it up so that it will no longer function. The kind of weapon you would hang up on your wall is not the kind that is in any way likely to be used in a crime (not too many drive by shootings or convenience store robberies with WWI-era bolt action rifles, or Brown Bess muskets). There is only one reason such weapons get "deactivated": hoplophobia.

[salm]

i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

the media helps to increase this fear by permanently broadcasting crap like these reality cop shows. so the amis go out and buy even more guns. i just heard that these shows are financially supported by the nra. i dont have any proof for that but if that´s correct i´d be highly interresten in their reasons for throwing out $$ for bad entertainment.

[Nathan F]

First off, the reason we own guns is so that, if the need be, we can protect ourselves. Not everyone owns guns, and there is nothing wrong with that. The same could be said about many Europeans, Salm, you might be to scared to live WITH them, even when there is nothing to be scared of.

The media is wildly ANTI gun, not pro. And the shows you refer to are not supported by the NRA financially. Like I said, the majority of the media is anti-gun.

[Perinquus]

i guess americans need guns. they´re too scared to live without them.

Ahh, the hasty generalization rears its ugly head: Americans are a bunch of immature, trigger happy cowboys, yadda yadda yadda...

I wondered how long it would be before someone chimed in with something like this.