 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
downfall
Posts:133
 | | 10/12/2007 7:30 AM |
 Alert | All the posts in this thread seem to be staring at the tree and while not seeing the forest. The gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem. Guns are reified and then blamed for violence by the media and liberal politicians.
After about a dozen mass shootings have the debasing of our culture and the destruction of our social fabric even hinted at. Usually, when these are hinted at they are applied in the terms of the individual that perpetrated the crime and not our culture.
If we begin to place the blame for these violent outburst where it belongs, then we start down the slippery slope of condemning the cultural shifts that began in the 1960's and are now taken to absurd lengths. | |
"The price for conducting foreign policy on the basis of abstract principles is the impossibility of distinguishing among individual cases" | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:405
| | 10/12/2007 11:35 AM |
Alert | Posted By downfall on 10/12/2007 7:30 AM
All the posts in this thread seem to be staring at the tree and while not seeing the forest. The gun violence is a symptom of a larger problem. Guns are reified and then blamed for violence by the media and liberal politicians.
After about a dozen mass shootings have the debasing of our culture and the destruction of our social fabric even hinted at. Usually, when these are hinted at they are applied in the terms of the individual that perpetrated the crime and not our culture.
If we begin to place the blame for these violent outburst where it belongs, then we start down the slippery slope of condemning the cultural shifts that began in the 1960's and are now taken to absurd lengths.
I agree (and have argued on other threads) that the violent outbursts are a symptom of a larger issue. Can you elaborate on that last sentence though? | | | |
|
| | Nothingtodo
Posts:283
| | 10/12/2007 12:37 PM |
Alert | Owning a gun to protect your home is the same as having a fire extinguisher? While I'm all for people having a gun in their home because it is their choice and my choice not to, the chances of a fire extinguisher going off accidentally and killing me or my children are very slim. I guess if my kid was weak and it hit him directly in the chest it may leave a bruise which could then turn into a blood clot which could then travel to a lung......but I digress.
There are many different ways of preparing for a home invasion, guns are certainly not the only line of defense. A gun just seems less personal and I guess, to me, that instead of waking up with a 1st degree murder count, having bruises and headaches and regrets (or not) that you beat the crap out of your best friend would be preferable. | |
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t got the guts to bite people themselves. ~Sir Geoffrey Streatfield | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 10/12/2007 1:39 PM |
Alert | Posted By Nothingtodo on 10/12/2007 12:37 PM
Owning a gun to protect your home is the same as having a fire extinguisher? While I'm all for people having a gun in their home because it is their choice and my choice not to, the chances of a fire extinguisher going off accidentally and killing me or my children are very slim. I guess if my kid was weak and it hit him directly in the chest it may leave a bruise which could then turn into a blood clot which could then travel to a lung......but I digress.
There are many different ways of preparing for a home invasion, guns are certainly not the only line of defense. A gun just seems less personal and I guess, to me, that instead of waking up with a 1st degree murder count, having bruises and headaches and regrets (or not) that you beat the crap out of your best friend would be preferable.
Yes, having a gun inside the home is tantamount to having a fire extinguisher inside the home. Both are tools to fight one particular threat. A gun can go off if it is left loaded and is handled improperly, but that's a human-error issue. Guns do not simply "go off" any more than your car simply "drives away" without human intervention. A fire extinguisher contains contents under pressure and can explode if it is mishandled, see the 2000 CPSC fire extinguisher recall for further on that.
Nobody is claiming that guns are the only line of defense. But they are the most appropriate tool to be used in the unlikely event that an armed criminal chooses your house to enter. The vast majority of folks who own them never use them in a combat scenario, which is the way it should be. But then again, the vast majority of folks who own a fire extinguisher never use it in a fire, either. It's simply a personal preparedness issue. You are not compelled to own either one, but it's nice to be able to have the option. | | | |
|
| | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 10/12/2007 2:06 PM |
Alert | Posted By Nothingtodo on 10/12/2007 12:37 PM
Owning a gun to protect your home is the same as having a fire extinguisher? While I'm all for people having a gun in their home because it is their choice and my choice not to, the chances of a fire extinguisher going off accidentally and killing me or my children are very slim.
The comparison is only an analogy, not a direct correlation. A gun would only go off "accidentally" if mishandled, whereas a fire extinguisher could blow up if it were trapped in a fire.
There are many different ways of preparing for a home invasion, guns are certainly not the only line of defense. A gun just seems less personal and I guess, to me, that instead of waking up with a 1st degree murder count, having bruises and headaches and regrets (or not) that you beat the crap out of your best friend would be preferable.
How do you get that there would be a 1st degree murder charge? Laws were recently revised in AZ such that you no longer need to prove that you were facing imminent mortal threat, the prosecution must prove that you weren't, if I recall correctly. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 10/12/2007 3:10 PM |
Alert | Posted By Jason on 10/12/2007 2:06 PM
How do you get that there would be a 1st degree murder charge? Laws were recently revised in AZ such that you no longer need to prove that you were facing imminent mortal threat, the prosecution must prove that you weren't, if I recall correctly.
This is fairly accurate. Known as the "Castle Doctrine," a change in the way self-defense cases are handled was passed last year. The basic premise is that a person's home or vehicle is his or her Castle, and the prosecutorial standards have changed for folks who employ a firearm to defend their lives within those locations.
Essentially, the burden of proof has shifted from the defense's need to prove that the homeowner fired in defense of his life, to the prosecution's need to prove that he or she did not. This does not mean you won't be taken to trial for something like this, it just means that the state has to prove its case against you as opposed to it being the other way around.
Having said that, the firearm should always be the absolute last line of defense...and I hope nobody here ever has to employ one in that way. Even for those who win the battle, the consequences can be devastating both emotionally and financially. Here's to hoping that all of us, and everyone we know, stays fortunate and never becomes the victim of such violence. | | | |
|
|  | demonica
Posts:850
| | 10/12/2007 3:15 PM |
Alert | Posted By drummer72 on 10/10/2007 12:33 PM
This is getting good! How many more cliches can we post before the afternoon is over?
All I'm saying IS,is that there would be far less homicides with guns, if they were restricted. I understand people will get them some how, but it would be far less than what's floating around in this violent country of ours.
and there would be far less vehicular deaths if cars were outlawed, which makes about as much sense. | | | |
|
| | demonica
Posts:850
| | 10/12/2007 3:23 PM |
Alert | Posted By JennyPStefanow on 10/10/2007 3:02 PM
Oh, Jenny, *slaps self on wrist* I told you to stay out of the politics and religion threads!
But as a single woman who is a gun owner, I feel obliged to respond. Do I think it's "cool" to own a gun? No. For me, it has nothing to do with status. Do I enjoy target shooting, and have I been trained to shoot? Yes. Some of my best memories are of going to the range with my Dad. I also have a security system, and thanks to Cujo (pictured), a dog, too. But if it's three a.m., I'm home alone in bed, the alarm goes off and the dog starts growling, I reach for my Ruger first, then my cell phone. Both are kept near my bed.
Will I shoot someone to save my "stuff" (that's a laugh in itself!)? Heck no! But will I hold a potential rapist/murderer at gunpoint while I wait for ADT to dispatch the authorities? If he doesn't have the common sense to make like a tree and leave, yes.
I've unfortunately known women who have been threatened by guns in domestic situations, and the case you referenced is a true tragedy. But to blame the gun is in a way to excuse the abuser, and that, to me, is inexcusable. I know that things happen in the heat of the moment, but illegalizing guns isn't the way to stop domestic violence. In those situations, the abuser will still find a way to kill the abused if that's his "heat of the moment" urge. You can wrap a toaster in towel and brain somebody - what will we do next, outlaw toasters? Heck, break a glass or a bottle and you have a handy dagger - what to do, mandate that everything be made of plastic? That ought to make the oil barons happy (and yes, I do read way too much Stephen King and watch too many horror movies).
But the point remains, if somebody is psychotic, on drugs, abusive, or all three, and is set on killing, they'll find a way to do it, gun or no gun. Knowing that an intruder/attacker may have a gun makes me want to maintain the right to have my own. Keeping a gun in my home is a personal choice; for me, it is a last resort in case of extreme emergency. And it is just that - a choice. I've never committed a crime - why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself? Like I said, I'm a single gal whose taken all the precautions. If an intruder is in my bedroom, it isn't Avon calling. If they're unarmed, they can beat it on out of there. If they are armed, why shouldn't I be allowed to be armed as well?
jenny-
i, for one, am very glad you read and responded to this. i agree with all of your points, but you said it far better than i could have this week! | | | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:244
| | 10/12/2007 5:51 PM |
Alert | I'm impressed to see the number of people on this forum who aren't in favor of gun control as a solution to deeper societal issues.
For the anti-gunners let me tell you that I am one of the few to have drawn a gun in self defense. I chose not to pull the trigger the two times I have drawn my weapon, but would have been justified in doing so had the situation called for it. The first time was nineteen years ago. I was stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic at a standstill on I-10 and had large Native American gentleman get half-way into my car in an attempt to car-jack me to get a ride to the reservation. He had a large knife. I had a large gun. He saved his life by immediately jumping out of the car and running off. The second was a few years later when I had to be at the intersection of 24th street and Airlane at 11:00PM. I was stopped at the tracks waiting for a train to get by and had another large gentleman grab the door handle and show me a pistol in his waste band. Since my firearm was very handy, I presented it to him (business end first) and he also elected to run away. I would have shot both of these guys if they had hesitated or had moved towards me.
I didn't go looking for a fight. Hell, the first time I just happened to have the pistol with me, as I wasn't in the habit of carrying it at that time. By the second time I had started carrying the gun only when I thought I was going into a bad neighborhood. Now I carry it everywhere, with hope that it stays holstered forever. I don't relish the nightmares that I would have forever if I ever had to shoot someone, but I do intend to stay alive, and banning guns will not convince me to forfeit my right to protect myself, my family, and anybody else who needs assistance in a crisis situation. | |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | Nothingtodo
Posts:283
| | 10/12/2007 6:39 PM |
Alert | The reason I laughed at the comparison is I rarely hear of an extinguisher being used inappropriately. Maybe there have been cases of "fire extinguisher rage" that I haven't heard about, but I would imagine there are far more cases of a gun being used for something other than home invasion protection.
Yes, both can be used for protection of the home. One has little chance of abuse. Aren't there any other home invasion protection ideas that would be less dangerous? | |
I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven’t got the guts to bite people themselves. ~Sir Geoffrey Streatfield | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2549
| | 10/12/2007 8:30 PM |
Alert | When the first of four children was old enough to walk, I decided to remove the firearms from our home. That way I could sleep at night. There are a multitude of ways to protect your home - some take a little different strategy, but they're still as effective as blowing the bad guy all over the front lawn with a .357. Alarms are good. Lights with sensors are good. You would be surprised what can be done with a baseball bat in skilled hands if it comes to close combat.
I am 100% for an armed population. Along with the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to use them wisely. It should always be a personal choice. Disarming the American population (or, rather, attempting to) will lead to chaos and tyranny.
Now, when you have a 14-year old show up in class with a couple of loaded firearms, there is an irresponsible gun owner somewhere that needs to be dealt with. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 10/13/2007 3:51 AM |
Alert | Posted By Nothingtodo on 10/12/2007 6:39 PM
Yes, both can be used for protection of the home. One has little chance of abuse. Aren't there any other home invasion protection ideas that would be less dangerous?
Well, the entire point here is that if you are going to try and protect yourself from something or someone dangerous, you often have to use a tool that is dangerous. That's just how the game works. And it's the same with fighting fire...you are either using dry chemical extinguishers (or Halon in some locations) which aren't all that great for your health, or you're shoving water onto a fire and thereby generating steam that can scald you within an inch of your life. Get my drift here? The danger is already inherent within the situation.
There are other ways you can protect your home from invasion. Some enterprising folks in Florida built a moat around their abode. A guy in Washingon state made one of those old-fashioned portcullis things that he could drop down in front of his door in an effort to shoo away salespeople. There are people with safe rooms and things like that. Those are all options, but they are all incredibly expensive. And you know what else? They aren't portable. They can be mounted into a home, but they cannot be carried along with you on your travels.
A firearm can. It can be strapped on for long overland hikes where fearsome critters roam (very common in Alaska, or even here in mountain lion country), or it can be kept for those rare trips into neighborhoods where even the police don't like to tread. It's a simple measure of personal protection, one that has been tried and true since cap-and-ball gave way to cartridge, and it can be a true lifesaver if it is treated with respect and handled proficiently. | | | |
|
| | klix76
Posts:72
| | 10/13/2007 12:30 PM |
Alert | | Deer "leefmily" i disagree. I have been held up at gunpoint many years back, 3 times. Usually (not always) the criminal has as much fear as if not more than the victim. A gun, from a distance gives you a far better chance than a knife in close comabt. | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3153
| | 10/14/2007 6:32 PM |
Alert | Posted By klix76 on 10/13/2007 12:30 PM
Deer "leefmily" i disagree. I have been held up at gunpoint many years back, 3 times. Usually (not always) the criminal has as much fear as if not more than the victim. A gun, from a distance gives you a far better chance than a knife in close comabt.
Where did you live? | |
I'd rather live one day as a lion, than my whole life as a lamb. | |
|
| | Tigg
Posts:549
| | 10/14/2007 10:07 PM |
Alert | Posted By Jason on 10/11/2007 9:40 AM Posted By Tigg on 10/10/2007 10:13 PM
Yes, Jason, we know you are easily confused.  I wasn't confused, just puzzled that you would make a contradicting statement like that.
There was nothing contradictory in my statement. The two statements are complimentary.
1. The gun laws that we have are not enforced - there isn't much real effort actually made to enforce the current laws.
2. Criminals will find a way to get the guns that they want.
Nothing contradictory here. IF the gun laws we have were enforced, that would make it MUCH more difficult for the criminals to get the guns they want and could force them to go different routes (as I mentioned as well, and used the example that had been given of using bombs as a replacement, either way - they get something that goes boom).
As has been said here many times, keeping guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens will do nothing to stop crime & murder and would only make it easier for those criminals determined enough to find a way to get what they want to know that the only resistance they would come across would be a toaster or baseball bat (or the equivilant). | | | |
|
| | Tigg
Posts:549
| | 10/14/2007 10:23 PM |
Alert | If someone responsible and law abiding is carrying a gun or has 1 (or even several) in their home, you will likely never even know it. Having a gun does not mean that a person is walking around flailing it around showing the world to beware.
If I were to be in danger and someone were to use a gun to safe my life or protect my wellbeing - I would be thankful, not concerned that guns had not been banned! If a wild animal was charging at me, again, I would be thankful if someone was able to use a gun to scare the animal away, and if that didn't work, to stop that animal before it mauled me! I know people who have guns in their homes and don't take them everywhere, and I know people who take a gun with them nearly everywhere they go - none of those people are irresponsible, and looking at them, you'd never guess that they were armed because they'd NEVER even show the gun, let along use it, unless there were no other options. Those are not the sort of people who should be prevented from owning guns, and if laws were changed to ban gun ownership, it'd be those people who would be effected. | | | |
|
| | mallardisme
Posts:572
| | 10/14/2007 11:00 PM |
Alert | I have to love this thead.
What happens when your neighbor is attacked?
Wait.
What happens whe your neighbor is attacked and the house accross the street is being looted.Wait.
What happens when your neighbor is attacked and the house accross the street is being looted and the store down th street is being burned to the ground.
What happens when this is happening and you call 911 and nobody comes?
What happens when the cops are in a parking lot and can't come?
Far fetched? Nope. It happened to me in 1992.
Nobody could help. Nobody would come. Thank God I had a gun to keep the bad people away.
I did leave and nobody in my care was hurt, although I did have an interesting incident on the freeway. (10/405)
I absolutly agreee with the right to bear arms. In 1992, I truly understood why this became part of our constitution.
Speak as you wish, but understand, fully, that freedom is never free. Tyranny and mob rules are just a breath away every day.
----> los angeles. 1992
Gaaaa.. outlaw guns. Nice. That will help nothing. Outlaw crinminals. That works better, | |
Let X=X | |
|
| | GilaGuy
Posts:789
| | 10/15/2007 4:06 AM |
Alert | Posted By mallardisme on 10/14/2007 11:00 PM
I have to love this thead.
What happens when your neighbor is attacked?
Wait.
What happens whe your neighbor is attacked and the house accross the street is being looted.Wait.
What happens when your neighbor is attacked and the house accross the street is being looted and the store down th street is being burned to the ground.
What happens when this is happening and you call 911 and nobody comes?
What happens when the cops are in a parking lot and can't come?
Far fetched? Nope. It happened to me in 1992.
Nobody could help. Nobody would come. Thank God I had a gun to keep the bad people away.
I did leave and nobody in my care was hurt, although I did have an interesting incident on the freeway. (10/405)
I absolutly agreee with the right to bear arms. In 1992, I truly understood why this became part of our constitution.
Speak as you wish, but understand, fully, that freedom is never free. Tyranny and mob rules are just a breath away every day.
----> los angeles. 1992
Gaaaa.. outlaw guns. Nice. That will help nothing. Outlaw crinminals. That works better,
For those of us who were there, the Riots were a powerful and life-changing notification that your government cannot save you. For those who weren't there, Hurricane Katrina was beamed to our television sets thirteen years later with the exact same message.
It's alarming to think that, but once you break it down it makes sense...there are 300 million of us out here. And there is no way the government can protect each of us, or rescue each of us when the chips are down. The only way out is to protect yourself as best as you can, to give yourself a fighting chance.
Our forefathers didn't need satellite TV to tell them this, and it is to our great benefit that they included the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of Rights. | | | |
|
| | drummer72
Posts:3153
| | 10/15/2007 6:44 PM |
Alert | | My hands are registered weapons of mass destruction. | |
I'd rather live one day as a lion, than my whole life as a lamb. | |
|
| | mallardisme
Posts:572
| | 10/16/2007 1:06 AM |
Alert | GilaGuy,
did you hear what happened in the aftermath of Katrina? I have just started to hear about it and I never heard it in the news.
I know there where gun incidents with residents.
The National Guard and other groups actually went door to door and took guns from residents.
I heard this from radio stations today as well as from people who where there.
The concept of forcably removing the guns from law abiding citizens is scary enough, but the fact that this was not reported by the news media really scares me.
The second ammendment was a provision that was added to our constitution so that a sitting military can NEVER take homes, proprty or rights from the people.
How scary is this issue?
I agree with what you said about the government: they can't protect all of the time. They should not. I am in favor of less government, not more. (And I am conservative)
When anyone works to take away our constitutional rights, we should be up in arms... Gaaa, That is hard when the people have no arms or rights.
We all still just want the best for our country and our kids. | |
Let X=X | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|