Legal to have firearms in your house

Japanpimp, I watched the video, I tried to respond but I find I cannot without crossing the boundaries regarding politics.

Let me say it once more clearly. I have never stated anywhere in this thread that I believe that all guns should be banned anywhere. If you think I have, find it, quote it and prove me wrong.

I still believe that keeping a gun for the sole purpose of home protection is mostly unneccessary and actualy increases the risk of harm from a firearm inside that home.

That's all. It's just getting repetitive now so I will stop posting.

Yes people should. Also, can we end the lawsuits where criminals that get injured in-progress of breaking the law, get paid for it? It would be nice to not give settlements to criminals. Lol.

I'll try responding to a few points of Rodri's larger post here.

First, I don't think the necessity to have guns in the US came from increased violence or mistrust, but rather from our origins, or specifically when we broke free from Great Britain. One saying common where I live is, "God, guns and guts made this country free, let's keep all three!". Now, I could be wrong, but I've just always had the impression that guns have been a major part of the US before the modern day, before even the 70s, and all that. Maybe there's been an increase of interest in guns in the US in recent years than in the past. It's hard for me to say from personal experience, since I'm still young.

As for it breeding a generation of violence... let me tell you a bit about where I live. I live near St. Louis, which has amongst some of the worst crime rates in the US. Burglaries, car-jackings, rapes, murders, gang violence, and so forth aren't uncommon out here. Where I live, in the country, I have a meth lab about 100 feet or so (I'm bad at measuring distance) from my house, and about half a dozen more in the general neighborhood. Fugitives, felons, people running from parole, etc. often hide out from the law in this area. Usually at least once a month, the police come out here looking to bust a lab or look for a person of interest. Once, it was one of the state's most wanted fugitives. Usually at least once or twice a year, we have the cops stationed on our driveway and sneaking through our yard to surround/stake out a neighbor. One of those situations included a drunk shooting at random houses out here with a rifle. A few neighbors of mine have been the victims of arson, their houses being burned to the ground. Recently, a family in the neighborhood received death threats (though this isn't that uncommon either) and had a burning cross erected in their yard for vocally speaking out against racism. Along those lines, minority ethnicities are often on the receiving end of various hate crimes out here. It's also not uncommon to find yourself at the end of a mob assault if you say the wrong thing to the wrong person. A few years ago, we had a child (early teenage years I think), kidnapped (I believe at gunpoint) by a pedophile. Fortunately he was rescued shortly after and the pedophile faced justice (at least of the lawful sort), though not before certain unspeakable activities took place. Very recently, gang wars have been coming on the rise, too, which seem to always somehow force the involvement of bystanders.

Now, I don't know what has caused society to be like this. However, what I do know, is that it really is dangerous, at least sometimes, and in certain parts of this country. Maybe not as exaggerated as media or TV makes it out to be, but where I live tends to draw the worst sorts, for the detriment of all goodly and law-abiding people trying to make a living here. And yes, we do feel the need to feel safe. Out here, in the country, the police take quite a while to arrive on the scene. Most likely, they won't ever get to you in time. We have guns, but I assure you, so do all the "bad people". And no, we're not eager to use a gun or think a gun is the solution to all problems. But ne'er-do-goods prefer to target helpless victims over those that can fight back, and guns act as such a deterrent. We want to believe in neighborly community and the best of people, and most of us do get along quite fine, even if we don't always like one another, but the reality is, there's always those people that have a ":modedit: you, me > you" mentality, and out here, you honestly can't tell who's a lawful citizen and who's a druggie running from the cops. And even if guns were banned, all good-intentioned and law-abiding people gave up their firearms, gun shops were closed, and so forth, the "bad people" would still get their hands on guns, one way or another, and would not think twice about using them on the good-intentioned people to get what they want or need.

I don't know of anyone that has a gun for defence, that wants to use it. I think we all hope we never have to. But we'd rather live with the burden of having a gun in our possession, than to risk being a victim of something serious. You could say "It doesn't happen that often, and bad things always happen to someone else", but to everyone else, you are a someone else, and you don't know until it's too late if it's your turn to be the victim.

I'd hate to kill someone. I wouldn't be quick to do it. I'd see it as a last resort. I'd gladly use pepper-spray or something first. If I were robbed, I'd probably be more likely to just let the crook take the money and go, and report it later. However, if I were approached by someone with the intention to harm me, I would do what I had to do to ensure my safety. I wouldn't want to kill them, and I'm sure I'd be bothered by ending a life if it happened. But if given the ultimatum to cope with ending the life, or cope with whatever they plan to do with me, I'd choose the former.

Anyway, I can admire your post more than you may realize, Rodri. Your ideal community is one I'd love to have. Perhaps if I lived where you do, I'd feel safer. But living where I do, I just can't rule out the possibility of trouble. It's the sad truth. I'd be very happy to not feel this way, or live somewhere better than I do. Like you've said, I don't know your life experiences. But then, you wouldn't know mine, either. Maybe if our roles were reversed, we'd be fighting the same argument on the opposite sides. Who knows.

PS, I apologize for making the assumption that you've not had experience around guns. I really do appreciate being corrected on that.

Rodri: I know, you've stated you won't respond. However, I think you've demonstrated the greatest level of competence for your "side" of the debate, so I'd ask you to anyway.

My objection to your stated position is this: I do not believe that safety, whether from accidents, violence, or the violation of liberty, should ever be permitted to dictate principle.

The principle of disarming a populace... well, it's a lovely idea, but who will guard us from criminals? If the police are armed, who will protect us from them? If the military is armed... well, you see the escalation. Personally, I've been victimized by law-enforcement personnel in the past, and while I would not shoot a cop (save perhaps in the last extremity of necessity) it still strikes me that an armed populace is the second-best defense against tyrrany. It's a deterrent.

The best defense against tyrrany is helping to govern. If that becomes easier, I'll be less likely to be armed at home - but even then I'll always* believe in the principle that an armed populace is a good thing.

*NOTE - I'm willing to be proven wrong. I doubt that I can be, but that won't stop me from listening.

Gnerphk, I never noticed you replied to my original question until just now. (And my apologies to abra, you really deserved the next outburst. But my attention span has been nil lately and nothing you've said caught my eye.)

Calling it a 'reply' is rather generous though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasterbee

How would me owning a gun prevent the gov't from enforcing a law I thought reached too far into my privacy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

It's known as deterrence.

---

Then you rambled on forever about prostitution and drugs.

Guess what? I think women & men should be allowed to have sex for cash and that most all drugs should be legal. So nuts to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

Would a ruthless and effective enforcement of America's drug laws improve our country? Probably.

---

No. It wouldn't.

It would only push more money into the hands of criminals and overload our already taxed justice system. Just as many drugs would be bought/sold, the price would go up and more time/money/effort would be wasted arresting and jailing the never-ending supply of foot soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

Would anyone care to live in a country where draconian measures against that sort of crime are possible?

---

It was called the 80's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

No doubt some would.

---

They live in a shining city upon a hill and worship Reagan.




But, wait...back to the point. You said an armed populace prevents tyranny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

The principle of disarming a populace... well, it's a lovely idea, but who will guard us from criminals? If the police are armed, who will protect us from them? If the military is armed... well, you see the escalation.

---

But, wait...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

while I would not shoot a cop

---

That's the linchpin of your entire argument! That you would shoot a police officer! Without that...everything you've said prior is meaningless. Your argument for owning guns is so that you can murder authority figures if they encroach on your civil/God-given/whatever rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

....save perhaps in the last extremity of necessity

---

You're never going to be in a stand off with the cops. But for arguments sake, you are and during the earlier extremities that took place right before the last straw when you decided it was time to fire upon the police...the cops would have taken your gun from you by force. That's what cops do. You got a gun and might possibly use it against them, they take it from you. Or kill you.


Everything you've said has the attitude of an elementary school playground bully who has never been challenged but if 'I ever am, I gotta a switchblade in my sock and I'm not afraid to use it!" That's all well and good until a battalion of SWAT bust in your house to confiscate your illegal tobacco and alcohol. You ain't gonna do squat but wet your pants and hand it over.

To everyone else in this thread...stop picking on Rodri. He's right. Guns are stupid. Sure, they're fun and make you feel safe. But in the long run they do nothing but harm. One rape here and there...big deal. One occasional dead emergency worker...yeah, it's a shame. Sh-t happens, it's going to happen whether or not you got a little revolver in your purse. Or, whether or not the bad guy has one too. Bottom line is, as a populace we are too unreliable to go around arming everyone. We should round up every single firearm, then only hand them back out after extensive training and just cause. We're way past the point where an armed populace is going to prevent anything. Majority of gun owners are not organized in a manner to rebel whatsoever and all they got is a stinking handgun or hunting rifle with a pocketful of shells. And the gunfreaks that have stockpiled dozens of arms and thousands of rounds of ammo will be busy tripping over themselves trying to decide which weapon to use they won't even notice the precision-like force of trained and battle hardened gov't operatives that descend upon them.

As a community we mature and outgrow older customs. We're not murdering natives for land these days nor selling black people on street corners. It's high time that 'minimally regulated gun ownership for all' be reevaluated and modified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnerphk

Rodri: I know, you've stated you won't respond. However, I think you've demonstrated the greatest level of competence for your "side" of the debate, so I'd ask you to anyway.

My objection to your stated position is this: I do not believe that safety, whether from accidents, violence, or the violation of liberty, should ever be permitted to dictate principle.

The principle of disarming a populace... well, it's a lovely idea, but who will guard us from criminals? If the police are armed, who will protect us from them? If the military is armed... well, you see the escalation. Personally, I've been victimized by law-enforcement personnel in the past, and while I would not shoot a cop (save perhaps in the last extremity of necessity) it still strikes me that an armed populace is the second-best defense against tyrrany. It's a deterrent.

The best defense against tyrrany is helping to govern. If that becomes easier, I'll be less likely to be armed at home - but even then I'll always* believe in the principle that an armed populace is a good thing.

*NOTE - I'm willing to be proven wrong. I doubt that I can be, but that won't stop me from listening.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Let me say it once more clearly. I have never stated anywhere in this thread that I believe that all guns should be banned anywhere. If you think I have, find it, quote it and prove me wrong.

---

Not all issues are two sided and if this one is, then I am not on either side. It seems like anyone who is not 100% pro-gun is immediately branded as being pro-ban. In between those two extremes there is all sorts of room for controls upon ownership and what type of weapons can be purchased. I like the beanbag gun idea as it minimises the lethal risk. I also think that a thorough background check, mandatory training and licencing are reasonable steps to take, as is banning the sale of assault rifle type weapons as they can be modified quite easilly from semi automatic to fully automatic by anyone who knows what they are doing. (it helps keep the nut-jobs from spraying bullets around a crowded restaurant)

The underlying problem is that the police forces seem to be inadequate or unwilling to perform their duties. If that is the case then why not use the democratic process to insist on a better standard from your elected officials?

Whilst I am on the matter of the democratic process, it seems to me that if you believe that the system is so broken that you cannot trust your elected leaders to not go Orwellian on you, then perhaps that needs to be looked at and changed as well? I know that the Australian system has a number of checks and balances built into it to prevent a leader from over-stepping the mark in regards to their powers.

Only recently we have seen our Prime Minister replaced in a bloodless coup by his own party because they had lost confidence in his ability to perform. Many people were upset because they thought it was un-democratic but it is the way our system works. Prime ministers are not elected by the population (except those who live in that particular electorate as their federal representative). A Prime Minister is elected by the sitting members of the PARTY that won the most seats in the House of Representatives at the last election and those same members can call for a "spill" and hold a ballot to elect a new leader at any time.

There are other checks and balances as well. For instance, the Prime Minister sits in the House of Representatives and can frame legislation which then must be passed by the House of Representatives and then by the Senate. If the Senate rejects that legislation it goes back to the House of Rep's and must be reframed or abandonded. Even if it does pass easilly through the Senate, it must then go to the Govenor-General to be signed off. The Govenor-General is a titular head of state with limited powers. But they include the final review of all legislation and the power to dismiss a government, under extreme circumstances.

If the people are unhappy with any laws that have been made, they (as a group or an individual) can also launch a legal challenge in The High Court. If they cannot afford to pay for that legal action, free legal aid must be provided by the Government to enable them to pursue their case. If the High Court reaches a decision that a law is unconstitutional or even against the spirit of the constitution, then that law is repealed and the Government must frame new legislation to replace it.

If all of that fails, then I would still prefer to see passive civil resistance rather than an armed rebellion. It has worked in the past and can work in the future.

Surely the American system also has it's checks and balances? I know that the right to bear arms is considered one of those but surely that must be a last resort in absolutely desperate circumstances?

The American system most surely has checks and balances. Your Australian government and laws are in fact based largely upon ours and the UK's pretty much equally. While Australia had a bloodless move for independence in 1900, America's was very bloody, extended, and had a few core issues that remain in the collective memory of our people. When we achieved independence through forceful revolt, we created a constitution to govern ourselves with. We took special care to protect ourselves from future recurrences of the sorts of abuse heaped upon us by the British government of the time, and to defend the right to keep the very things that allowed us to break free.

One of those things that helped us was that we had a mostly armed populace. And at the first sneezing of potential revolt, the first thing the British did was try to remove our guns. Yes, we wrote into our Constitution a law that makes it fair and right for citizens to keep and bear arms in order to prevent a return to tyranny.

Checks and balances and word of law mean nothing if they cannot be enforced. I cannot go into modern-day encroachments on our rights by the government without stepping into the realm of outright politics. Suffice it to say that many American citizens feel that maintaining these weapons is an integral part of who we are and stands as a defense of our homes against many threats of varied types.

I have neighbors who don't have guns. They are the minority here, but we all respect their choice. I have neighbors who are far more cavalier about the guns they have than I am. I respect their choice. You see guns as being an unnecessary danger in our homes, and I respect that as well.

I just would ask you, have you never heard of a democratic government turned bad? Can you think of no instances in the past century when a peaceful and law-abiding people with a lawful government found themselves stripped of their civil rights by a government that elevated themselves from the positions they were duly elected to and named themselves, oh, say, a "reich" perhaps? Has it never happened that a government turned on their own citizens and committed crimes against humanity on those same people, all within the protection of the so-called laws and with the blessing of the courts? Had the citizenry of that nation been armed, instead of having been stripped of their personal firearms by a treaty years before, might not the result of all this have been much different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodri

Not all issues are two sided and if this one is, then I am not on either side. It seems like anyone who is not 100% pro-gun is immediately branded as being pro-ban. In between those two extremes there is all sorts of room for controls upon ownership and what type of weapons can be purchased. I like the beanbag gun idea as it minimises the lethal risk. I also think that a thorough background check, mandatory training and licencing are reasonable steps to take, as is banning the sale of assault rifle type weapons as they can be modified quite easilly from semi automatic to fully automatic by anyone who knows what they are doing. (it helps keep the nut-jobs from spraying bullets around a crowded restaurant)

The underlying problem is that the police forces seem to be inadequate or unwilling to perform their duties. If that is the case then why not use the democratic process to insist on a better standard from your elected officials?

Whilst I am on the matter of the democratic process, it seems to me that if you believe that the system is so broken that you cannot trust your elected leaders to not go Orwellian on you, then perhaps that needs to be looked at and changed as well? I know that the Australian system has a number of checks and balances built into it to prevent a leader from over-stepping the mark in regards to their powers.

Only recently we have seen our Prime Minister replaced in a bloodless coup by his own party because they had lost confidence in his ability to perform. Many people were upset because they thought it was un-democratic but it is the way our system works. Prime ministers are not elected by the population (except those who live in that particular electorate as their federal representative). A Prime Minister is elected by the sitting members of the PARTY that won the most seats in the House of Representatives at the last election and those same members can call for a "spill" and hold a ballot to elect a new leader at any time.

There are other checks and balances as well. For instance, the Prime Minister sits in the House of Representatives and can frame legislation which then must be passed by the House of Representatives and then by the Senate. If the Senate rejects that legislation it goes back to the House of Rep's and must be reframed or abandonded. Even if it does pass easilly through the Senate, it must then go to the Govenor-General to be signed off. The Govenor-General is a titular head of state with limited powers. But they include the final review of all legislation and the power to dismiss a government, under extreme circumstances.

If the people are unhappy with any laws that have been made, they (as a group or an individual) can also launch a legal challenge in The High Court. If they cannot afford to pay for that legal action, free legal aid must be provided by the Government to enable them to pursue their case. If the High Court reaches a decision that a law is unconstitutional or even against the spirit of the constitution, then that law is repealed and the Government must frame new legislation to replace it.

If all of that fails, then I would still prefer to see passive civil resistance rather than an armed rebellion. It has worked in the past and can work in the future.

Surely the American system also has it's checks and balances? I know that the right to bear arms is considered one of those but surely that must be a last resort in absolutely desperate circumstances?

---

It's just a culture difference. You know, in Japan guns are strictly forbidden. And in Asia in general, there is zero tolerance for drugs. Get caught with weed, go to jail for 2 years. Period. Countries whos culture has nothing to do with guns will feel very different from those who do. And that is ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FoxyBunny

The American system most surely has checks and balances. Your Australian government and laws are in fact based largely upon ours and the UK's pretty much equally. While Australia had a bloodless move for independence in 1900, America's was very bloody, extended, and had a few core issues that remain in the collective memory of our people. When we achieved independence through forceful revolt, we created a constitution to govern ourselves with. We took special care to protect ourselves from future recurrences of the sorts of abuse heaped upon us by the British government of the time, and to defend the right to keep the very things that allowed us to break free.

One of those things that helped us was that we had a mostly armed populace. And at the first sneezing of potential revolt, the first thing the British did was try to remove our guns. Yes, we wrote into our Constitution a law that makes it fair and right for citizens to keep and bear arms in order to prevent a return to tyranny.

Checks and balances and word of law mean nothing if they cannot be enforced. I cannot go into modern-day encroachments on our rights by the government without stepping into the realm of outright politics. Suffice it to say that many American citizens feel that maintaining these weapons is an integral part of who we are and stands as a defense of our homes against many threats of varied types.

I have neighbors who don't have guns. They are the minority here, but we all respect their choice. I have neighbors who are far more cavalier about the guns they have than I am. I respect their choice. You see guns as being an unnecessary danger in our homes, and I respect that as well.

I just would ask you, have you never heard of a democratic government turned bad? Can you think of no instances in the past century when a peaceful and law-abiding people with a lawful government found themselves stripped of their civil rights by a government that elevated themselves from the positions they were duly elected to and named themselves, oh, say, a "reich" perhaps? Has it never happened that a government turned on their own citizens and committed crimes against humanity on those same people, all within the protection of the so-called laws and with the blessing of the courts? Had the citizenry of that nation been armed, instead of having been stripped of their personal firearms by a treaty years before, might not the result of all this have been much different?

---

Yes, America was able to be America because of firearms. The right to bear arms is the foundation of America. Without that right America would not exist. It would be Brimerica. The whole purpose is exactly what you said, to give the populace the ability to fight off a government that got "out of control". Thus, the right to bear arms is one of the main check/balances of America. It keeps America a 'Land of Freedom'. Without that right things would go just like you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanpimp

The right to bear arms is the foundation of America. Without that right America would not exist. It would be Brimerica.

---

I doubt that's true. Of all the imperial powers, Britain was the keenest to shed empire. I'm not sure gun ownership would impact on that at all.

I have had a bullet pass so close to my head that I felt the heat from it as it passed my ear and even heard the sound a bullet makes as it flies. I have also had a knife pulled on me and someone try to run me down with a vehicle.

I still believe that these things are only dangerous in the wrong hands, I also believe the majority of gun owners to be responsible. Considering 40% of a nation with a population of 307,006,550 owns firearms and firearms are involved in 1,500 accidental fatalities a year, I would say that pretty much proves most people are responsible with their guns. When you consider that car accidents are responsible for 43,200 fatalities a year and accidental Falls are responsible for 14,900 fatalities a year, it shows what people are more responsible with.

And I still stand by the right to own a gun, even though I have never owned one personally.