This is a discussion on if you feel a person without a criminal history and is mentally sane should have the right to own a fire arm for self defense in their own house
Please discuss in a peaceful way.
Printable View
This is a discussion on if you feel a person without a criminal history and is mentally sane should have the right to own a fire arm for self defense in their own house
Please discuss in a peaceful way.
i say yes, because these days you get people robbing houses with guns, knifes, baseball bats etc
Id have one and kill the peeps opposing to Crip4mod
Crip4mod!
^^^ thats why he also said mentally sane
Just as long as they are mentally sane and have no criminal record they should be allowed to. People are robbed all the time and should be able to defend themselves, their family, and possessions.Quote:
Originally Posted by http://hubpages.com/hub/Home-Invasions---An-Inside-Look
<15:28>From [Gonzo] : u were saying i was insane?
To [Gonzo]: oh that was you!!!! lol nooo of course not
I think you should be able to keep guns
This is a toughy but I would really say NO. I hate guns, and it doesn't matter to me if the person is sane or not.
When anger takes over it's something hard to control and at that moment you might pull the trigger.
You may say you know how to control yourself but what if a kid gets a hold of it? They don't know any better and could really hurt themselves and even others.
You're saying you'd keep a gun for protection? Why not get a bat or something? I know it doesn't have the same affect but it's better safe than sorry. The last thing you want is seeing your loved ones suffer because of your own mistake. It's a really scary thought and to be honest, just seeing a gun gives me such a bad feeling.
Depends on the crime....
Non-violent, non-sexual....just your average pot smoking, tax evading, drunk driver; sure they can have a gun.
But not a criminal who has committed a crime that caused physical harm to someone else that could use the weapon to aid them in future crimes. Sometime along those lines.
Just don't keep any bullets. Having a gun and pointing at the robber is more than likely enough to scare him off (though it could just make him mad)Quote:
Originally Posted by o0miza0o
Ah well then I'm fine with that! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
gun vs bat? i know which one would winQuote:
Originally Posted by o0miza0o
like jorbaud said keep no bullets, but pistol whip em ;)
Would you rather get some jewelry stolen by a robber or cause your child harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Super DurtSS10
Just saying. :P
i edited my post ;)
I'm on the fence with the whole gun issue.
Part of me believes that if all guns disappeared, the world would be a better place. But people are always going to find a way to gain the upper hand over each other.
Holding a loaded gun is quite a thrilling experience. I just don't see the same need for them that all the gun nuts do. Their arguments that we need to be able to defend ourselves from invaders foreign and domestic is kind of moot, those invaders would come packing a lot more than just a dinky pistol or rifle used for deer hunting. However, I may be slightly biased having had a shotgun loaded with slugs aimed at my face by an ignorant, immature cousin of mine while hanging out at our family's hunting shack one autumn.
Hehe not biased at all, you're just thinking about reality. That could happen to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
Eh but wouldn't it be great if there were no wars? But like you said, there will always be people fighting.
Whenever there's land, there's bound to be wars.. I always think of it that way.
The world would be better if no one had guns, explosives, or attack bunnies. But the fact is, every single country is too paranoid of what all the other countries have up their sleeves.
As it is, I would rather have my hypothetical son be in the slight danger of finding a gun and shoving it into his mouth (he could choke on that thing!) than be in the much greater danger of having him shot by a panicked crook with an itchy trigger finger. Gun safety is a simple and easy thing to practice around hypothetical children of your own; just put them out of reach of the child.
I agree with keeping hunting rifles as I like hunting, but I see no need for pistols because those are meant mainly for killing humans. You can also shoot someone with a rifle in case of an emergency.
Not all home invaders carry guns either, I keep a big ole kendo stick around for the lulz
I keep a bat in my closet, a pocket knife in my pillow and one of those survival knives in my dresser. I don't really believe in guns, I mean, you can never run out of ammo with a knife can you? ;)
I've got lots of knives too, but I like to be able to shoot people who trespass. Ummmmm....maybe I don't fit into the mentally sane category after all...too many knives...likes to shoot his neighbors...eh...Quote:
Originally Posted by acer5200
I'd throw the survival knives at the person (people). I have pretty good aim :o
The question is about the right to own one, though.
Personally, I'm scared by the concept. Over half of all people killed by guns in breakins are killed by a gun belonging to the house. A lot of time, that's someone shooting themselves or their own family members.
On the other hand, even counting terror attacks, Israel has a low crime rate. This has been linked to this: that firearms ownership and training are mandatory for the majority of citizens.
Personally, I'd hate to be deprived of the right to own and use a firearm when an intruder may well be armed regardless of the law.
I'm also of the opinion that an armed populace is less likely to be oppressed by their own government than an unarmed one. I'm not talking armed rebellion here, but instead the unenforceability of unpopular, intrusive laws. The fact of an armed populace will prevent a government agency from certain abuses and that's a good thing overall.
So I say yes, we should be allowed to have them.
Of course, I'm happy to debate these points. :)
If you're not talking about armed rebellion, what are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnerphk
Like, Waco-style get the ATF to burn down our house stand-offs?
How would me owning a gun prevent the gov't from enforcing a law I thought reached too far into my privacy?
Personally I think this is a silly topic for anyone in the U.S. to be discussing.
The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. This means every U.S. citizen has the right to have a gun in their home for protection against invaders domestic and foreign. So of course I believe in the right to own one.
What I disagree with is that too many people who own guns don't follow gun safety, that's how accidents happen. Like their own gun being used against them, or their kid shooting a friend while showing him the gun and so forth. If you have a gun in your house, everyone in the house, children included should be fully aware of gun safety and all measures should be taken to make sure no one can ever harm themselves with your gun. If it is a handgun, it should be locked in a gun safe with a trigger lock on the gun. The ammo should be stored in a different place than the gun. So if you keep your gun safe under your bed, put the ammo on a top shelf of your closet or something. If it is a rifle or a shotgun, get a gun case and keep the ammo in a small fire safe in a different room.
I love you abracax <3
You pretty much already said what I wanted to say when I read this.
Every year I've taught at least 2 students who have been disfigured because of being involved in gunfights. As a teacher working with a challenging section of the public, my personal safety and that of my students is reduced by the easy availability of guns.
For these reasons I'm on the side of gun control.
Do you and are you allowed to have a gun in your classroom to protect yourself is something happens?
It's illegal to bring guns on campus.Quote:
Originally Posted by jorbaud
I personally think that as long as the person doesn't have a questionable past, he/she should have the right to own a gun. BUT if for any reason they DO have a questionable past, they should be denied right away. The problem is, it really isn't that difficult to acquire a gun without a license.
Keep it in a safe place. Make sure it has bullets in. If the robber pulls his own weapon on you..... well. You know what to do. Remember to flick the safety off.
I think it is a good idea. Only last week a guy was robbed in my town when the robber pulled a knife on him and he simply stood there. If he'd had a Beretta 92, he wouldn't have been robbed. And society would've lost a burglar. Which, I guess is a double-edged sword. If he had a gun, all right, fine, he's been shot 7 times in the chest, but he's got a gun in his hand.
But, how do we know that he shot him in self-defence? What if the robber was defenceless? Well, that means that the gun shouldn't have been fired. Self-defence only, not offense. Shooting a guy attacking your family is fine, if you can prove it. If you shoot a guy that has no defence, you're going to jail for either GBH or murder.
I'm in the UK, and we're not allowed to defend ourselves using a firearm..... Not even a shotgun. Damn, just look at the guy's face when you pull out a 12-bore and point it straight at him.
I would argue that (at least in the US, I can't really speak for other countries) banning guns wouldn't accomplish much more than our ban on illegal drugs- people will still get their hands on them if they really want them, and their misuse will always only hurt the people in question or those around them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
With that said, I'm very firm on the belief that people shouldn't be anywhere near guns without being able to truly understand and appreciate what their capable of, and how to use them properly. I believe people of the US have the right to bear arms just the same as they have the right to learn how to fly an aircraft. But, they shouldn't be having anything to do with either if they have no idea what the hell they're dealing with.
However, controlled, banned, illegal, allowed, or whatever, I assure you that people will always find some sort of weapon to hurt one another with if that's their desire.
If you want a gun , you will get it easy.
Guns kill, it's plain and simple. 9 times out of 10 having a gun only causes more trouble for whoever is using it. Even in self defense, if a crook breaks into your home, with a gun out, and sees you pull a gun, most people will see it as a life or death situation, and shoot you before you have the chance to get off one shot.
Also, as stated before, having one in your home, there is always a chance that a child gets their hands on it, and kills themselves or somebody else. In fact over 14,000 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the US because they were playing with a parent's gun. It still happens with gun restrictions too, in Canada, about 800 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the same manner.
The better way to defend yourself and family would be with Martial arts. They teach you to assess the situation, and how to choose what battles are worth fighting, and what ones would be best to take the loss and move on.
On that note, stated before, Gun VS Bat... If they were in my house, the bat would win. I would force them in to close combat if they wanted a clear shot, and they would be taken down before they could take that clear shot.
I am a firm believer that guns solve no problems, only create problems, that said, I have an old battle ax attached to my wall, that I can have unlocked and in my hands in about 3 seconds (there is a trick to the lock most people don't know, that doesn't require a key to unlock), and I have a homemade Crossbow in my closet, that can fire my homemade bolts with deadly accuracy at 25 meters. However both of those require skill to even arm yourself with, and like any weapon, if you wield it at another person, you must be ready to use it to kill if you have to.
The problem is, you can't decide what's legal or not on the basis that if we make it illegal, people will still do it. Taking it to a further extent, you could justify stealing, or corruption, or any crime for that matter using that logic. You can't say "Oh well I'm not going to ban this because it's going to happen anyways."Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusair
I think that would happen no matter what sort of weapon you pull on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eliena
I would also fault that to lack of gun safety. They shouldn't be left in accessible areas for kids. Neither should medications, knives (or other weapons), and so forth either, but those accidents still happen too.Quote:
Also, as stated before, having one in your home, there is always a chance that a child gets their hands on it, and kills themselves or somebody else. In fact over 14,000 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the US because they were playing with a parent's gun. It still happens with gun restrictions too, in Canada, about 800 people, per year, under the age of 13 die in the same manner.
How are those any different or less dangerous than a gun?Quote:
However both of those require skill to even arm yourself with, and like any weapon, if you wield it at another person, you must be ready to use it to kill if you have to.
I'm not necessarily saying that's a reason to make it legal, but rather that I don't think banning it would make it go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
But I digress. I believe everyone (in the US, again, can't speak for other countries here) is free to decide whether or not they want to have a gun in their house. Some are obviously strongly against it. That's perfectly fine. I'd only be annoyed if I was told I wasn't allowed to because someone else that has nothing to do with my personal safety doesn't like them.
It's known as deterrence.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
For an example in modern society, I ask you to consider this: that in most cities, there are areas where the police choose not to go. Drug dealing and prostitution are widespread in most of these areas. Firearm ownership discourages the government from enforcing locally unpopular laws.
Personally, I'm morally opposed to both prostitution and most drug use. I'm convinced that our present approach to the societal problem is ineffective - and, incidentally, would remain so even if firearms were outlawed; criminals will always maintain firearm access.
My moral objection is insufficient to prevent society from performing self-destructive acts. The objections even of a majority of society are insufficient; America's "Prohibition" was ludicrously ineffective, largely due to an armed populace.
Consider the next "Prohibition". Will it be tobacco? Violent television? Alcohol again? Perhaps processed sugar or fryolator oil will be banned - for our health, of course. Or perhaps certain books will be outlawed, or certain religions, or certain unpopular personal choices. It has happened in the past, it is happening in other countries than my own right now, and it will happen most places in the future.
An armed populace deters tyrrany.
Would a ruthless and effective enforcement of America's drug laws improve our country? Probably.
Would anyone care to live in a country where draconian measures against that sort of crime are possible? No doubt some would.
I'd prefer to live in a country where we are encouraged, as a people, to find effective, creative, and non-tyrranical solutions to our own society's ills.
Please, if you disagree, share your reasons.
I like guns. I like bows and arrows too. I like long range trajectory. I have shot in competition with both guns and bows.Quote:
Originally Posted by criplockin
People usually place a certain image on guns. Like they are bad. But a gun is simply something that fires a projectile at high or LOW high speeds.
The projectile can be driven deep into hard cement, wood or plastic which helps us build things. Or the projectile can be sent to kill an animal for food or defense. Or is can be sent to injure someone or kill someone. Or it can be sent to help light up the sky if you are on a boat that is in trouble. It all depends on what the projectile is. Guns that shoot bean bags at low velocity do not kill, they hurt, bad. Again, guns are just fine. It is the projectile and the velocity of the projectile and what it is designed for that makes it a weapon or tool or deterent.
Every human has a right to protect themselves. How they choose to protect themselves should have some rules. I mean, there needs to be a limit put on what people can have to protect themselves. Any protection beyond that limit should be provided by legal authorities. What should that limit be? A rock? A stick? A knife? A bat? A tazer? A gun? A surface to air missle? A small nuclear device? A large nuclear device? I mean, we can't go crazy with the limit. But people should be able to use something to protect themselves and I feel that SOME guns are a good limit. Like a 12 guage with bean bags or rock salt. I mean, who needs a .50 Cal Browning Semi-Auto to help protect their house?
A person does not need to be shot with 00 Buck Shot or 30-06 cal or .45 cal bullets traveling between 800-3,000 fps in order for you to imobolize them and neutralize the threat. A bean bag or rubber bullets will stop anyone and make them not want to move. So as for having guns for home protection, I am 100% in favor for it. But the munitions need to be controlled so people don't get their hands on armor piercing and depleted uranium munitions. Basically, munitions that are overkill (pun intended) for home protection.
P.S. I hate it when people say guns kill. So do sticks. If you took guns away then the same people who used guns to kill will simply use knifes and arrows or the next available weapon. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
@ japanpimp i would want hollow points to insure i kill the intruder :)
me coming from a country where firearms are not for sale in shops next to mcdonalds (Australia)
i think that firearms only cause more trouble than they are worth in america you always hear about shootings and gang wars where innocent bystanders are shot
yes here in Australia there are still bikie wars and shootings but this is like a once a year occurance
and when stuff like this does happen 99% of the time it is drug dealers that end up being shot or their customers (hard drugs not pot)
so until Zombies start rising i am against the right to bear arms
What if someone made a special gun that was bright pink, made of plastic and shot large hard rubber bullets the size of golf balls at 300 feet per second? No enough to kill anyone but if you unloaded a bunch of those on someone they would leave your house real quick like.... would you use something like that for home protection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulstrife