Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bedridden homeowner shoots burglar

Crime Guns Self-Defense

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#21 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 02:39 PM

Bossy, on Jun 3 2003, 08:42 PM, said:

Because you can't kill someone or commit a violent crime by attending church or giving a speach.

On the contrary. More have died in the name of words and religion than handguns will ever kill.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#22 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,215 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 03:04 PM

^ sometimes using guns  :p Though there are many ways to die/kill, most of them, when for causes, violent
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#23 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 12:20 AM

Bossy, on Jun 3 2003, 08:42 PM, said:

jon3831, on Jun 3 2003, 07:03 PM, said:

Bossy, on Jun 3 2003, 01:53 PM, said:

I have no problems with waiting periods and registering guns. Responsible gun owners have nothing to hide. I think these things simply make it a bit harder for criminals to obtain guns. They also prevent people from obtaining one in a moment of rage.
A question to ponder... If owning guns is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, in the same manner as freedom of speech and religion, why aren't there waiting periods and registration to go to church or give a speech?

Because you can't kill someone or commit a violent crime by attending church or giving a speach.
I often think the Founding Fathers would be appalled to know what the right to bear arms means now. It was written in a time where it was absolutely necessary to kill meat to eat and when our country was newly settled and pretty much lawless (men wore swords, too, but you don't see many people sporting sabers on the streets any more :p :p).

I seriously doubt they could have envisioned what this country would become, or the fact that for most homeowners who have guns, the only people they hurt is the gun owner themselves or a member of the family.

Wish we could conjure them up and ask.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#24 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 12:56 AM

Rhea, on Jun 4 2003, 07:24 AM, said:

for most homeowners who have guns, the only people they hurt is the gun owner themselves or a member of the family.
That's actually not true. It's just what the gunowner-oppression crowd wants you to think when they say the technically true fact that you're most likely to shoot someone you know. What they're counting on people not to think of is the fact that people also "know" their rival gang members, drug dealers/customers, bookies/debtors, loan sharks/customers, pimps, partners in crime, underlings drafted by any of the above (willing or not, and eventually going straight or not), and those in their casual acquaintence who are criminals anyway (whether they show it or not) and have now come to victimize them.

#25 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 01:21 AM

Quote

(men wore swords, too, but you don't see many people sporting sabers on the streets any more

Only because it is illegal to carry a blade that long in most places. 3 1/2 inches is the limit in a lot of places.
Can't Touch This!!

#26 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 01:43 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 3 2003, 09:43 PM, said:

Bossy, on Jun 3 2003, 08:42 PM, said:

Because you can't kill someone or commit a violent crime by attending church or giving a speach.

On the contrary. More have died in the name of words and religion than handguns will ever kill.
Yeah, but no one kills by directly attending church or giving a speech, just like no one dies "in the name of handguns" but rather *by* handguns.  ;)

You're talking motivation.   I think Bossy was talking sheer mechanics of the act of violence.

#27 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:06 AM

Question: Why do we actually care what the Founding Fathers would think, anyway?

I like the heck out of John Adams and Ben Franklin, they were brilliant men, but they were brilliant men who lived and died 200 years ago, in a completely different world from the one we inhabit now.  What if their opinion just isn't relevant anymore?

I think it's very possible that the Founding Fathers might have extended the Right to Bear Arms to the sort of arms we'd bear today.  That still doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, in a modern context, to allow the proliferation of devices whose only real function is to kill people...

(In the specific case of an bedridden man, as we see here, I can understand owning a gun.  Lacking the option of flight, he has a pressing need for protection.  For most of us, who could probably just as easily run away in a life-threatening situation... well, I respect your right to make a different choice, but I can't say I understand it...)

#28 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 03:22 AM

Sierra, Jid-- Granted. But a gun is a tool, like any other, that can be used for good or ill. Religion is the same way; it can uplift people, or turn them to a murderous rage. Just ask Eric Rudolph.

Quote

I seriously doubt they could have envisioned what this country would become, or the fact that for most homeowners who have guns, the only people they hurt is the gun owner themselves or a member of the family.

Rhea: As Delvo mentioned, the statistic is misleading. It's almost always stated in this form: "You're <X> times more likely to be hurt yourself, a family member, or somebody you know.". Sadly, a lot of times the person that needs shootin' is somebody you know.

Chew on this:

Quote

“STOP THE DANGER!!!  BAN DOCTORS TODAY!  CALL YOU CONGRESSMAN!
Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners. Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors
before this gets out of hand. I have withheld the statistics on lawyers
for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid.”

Obviously, this doesn't factor in criminals who intentionally cause deaths (in either group), but the main issue at hand is whether law-abiding citizens should have handguns.

Further, more are killed by swimming pools each year by guns. And fists. And knives.


Quote

Question: Why do we actually care what the Founding Fathers would think, anyway?

John: Very liberal attitude, and one I agree with. Let’s say one of our founding fathers was brought back, and was appalled that blacks had the right to vote’. Would we, with all due diligence, cheerfully remove that right?

I rather think not. The fact is, we’re more tolerant and wise than we were 200 years ago.

Quote

That still doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, in a modern context, to allow the proliferation of devices whose only real function is to kill people...

You’re looking at it backwards, IMO. The device allows people to defend themselves. It can be used for good, or ill.

Quote

In the specific case of an bedridden man, as we see here, I can understand owning a gun. Lacking the option of flight, he has a pressing need for protection.

Quote

For most of us, who could probably just as easily run away in a life-threatening situation... well, I respect your right to make a different choice, but I can't say I understand it..

What about the case of a New York man, who’s child was being raped in the other room? He was too small to confront him physically, and obviously the child wasn’t in a position to stop it. The man in question took the only course he could, and shot the bastard to death.

Further, your average insane criminal isn’t going to cheerfully give you an opportunity to run out. And as for relying on 911, we saw the consequences in that case: By the time 911 answered, this man would have been dead.  Even if he was able-bodied, it’s doubtful he could have made it out, unless his house is setup such that there are exits by which to leave undetected.

Imagine that your most cherished loved one is being assaulted, or worse. He’s too big or strong for you, and the police are at least ten minutes away. Can you honestly tell me that, in such a contingency, you’d be better off without a gun? Imagine how much more intense that feeling must be for somebody with children.

I do think we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but that the right to the defense of self and others is an inviolable right.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#29 Bossy

Bossy

    Chaos Personified

  • Islander
  • 1,408 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 04:10 AM

John Burke, on Jun 4 2003, 11:10 AM, said:

That still doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, in a modern context, to allow the proliferation of devices whose only real function is to kill people...
I have to jump in here and say that this is a totally incorrect statement. The only real funtion of guns is not to kill people. There is a fairly large portion of the population of Wisconsin that still uses guns for hunting. Why do they hunt? Because they need to feed their families. My brother relies on game to help supplement his family of 5's meager grocery budget, and this is not an uncommon occurance here or in a number of other states.

That's right, Rhea, people still need to hunt for food. Also you pointed out that much of the country was lawless when the Constitution was framed. Which only goes to prove my point. The right to bear arms was for protection as well as hunting, and its still needed today. Yes, we have police. However, as can be seen in this case, they often do not arrive in time.

Last summer, I was in Florida for my cousin's wedding. The night of her wedding, one of her husband's friends had his home broken into. The guy who broke in was high on crack, I think it was. The entire family was asleep and only woke up when the man started to beat one of the teenage children. The father immediately called 911. It took quite some time before they arrived. During that time frame, the crazed guy assulted the son, daughter, and wife also trying to rape the women and threatening to kill them. The family tried to get out of the home, but didn't want to leave one member behind to suffer the attack of this man. The father got a gun and shot the man dead. Imagine what could have happened to any or all members of that family if the father hadn't had that gun.


#30 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 05:33 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 4 2003, 09:26 AM, said:

Further, more are killed by swimming pools each year by guns. And fists. And knives.
And cars. Don't forget cars.

Quote

John- That still doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, in a modern context, to allow the proliferation of devices whose only real function is to kill people...

Interesting statement...

Well, like Bossy pointed out, there's a lot of guns that their sole function is hunting for subsistence. I own guns whose sole purpose is target shooting. Others can be used in shooting competitions. So I don't really see "only real function is to kill people..."

You can use a hammer just as easily to kill. Does that mean we should outlaw them?

A gun is a tool. No more, no less. And, like Rov said, tools can be misused for good or ill.

But in the case of guns that are used in crimes, I'm forced to note that most of them were obtained illegally anyway. So, the question becomes, why do we need more laws restricting lawful ownership when we can't enforce the ones we have?

Quote

John- In the specific case of an bedridden man, as we see here, I can understand owning a gun. Lacking the option of flight, he has a pressing need for protection.

As a practical matter, who ascribes "need"?

Quote

John- For most of us, who could probably just as easily run away in a life-threatening situation... well, I respect your right to make a different choice, but I can't say I understand it..

For me, it's a simple matter of not running away. I have a right to feel secure in my own house. I have a right to defend my family. Running away while someone rapes or murders my family isn't really an option in my case. I'd rather stand and fight and die trying than the alternative, and I need the tools to make that choice effective.

Something to keep in mind throughout all of this is that many states don't allow the use of lethal force to defend property. Meaning, if there's a burglar in your house, you don't have the right to shoot him, unless he threatens physical harm on you or your family.

Quote

What about the case of a New York man, who’s child was being raped in the other room? He was too small to confront him physically, and obviously the child wasn’t in a position to stop it. The man in question took the only course he could, and shot the bastard to death.

Quote

I do think we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals...

Agreed. But how do you do it? It's already illegal for felons to own firearms. In California, certain violent misdemeanors are disqualifing offenses. What more do we need? One gun per month and fingerprints and ballistics testing and waiting periods and ownership permits are like band aids on artery wounds. Instead of targeting the lawful gun owners, why don't we target the people that use firearms in the commission of crimes?

Quote

Rov: And as for relying on 911, we saw the consequences in that case: By the time 911 answered, this man would have been dead.

Every time I've called 911 I've been on hold for at least 5 minutes. 5 minutes is an eternity in this type of scenario, especially when these things are decided within 10 seconds...

There's also the issue of police response times. In every case I've been in, it's taken the police 30-40 minutes to respond, sometimes more.


Quote

Rhea:I often think the Founding Fathers would be appalled to know what the right to bear arms means now.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -Patrick Henry

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Samuel Adams
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#31 QuiGon John

QuiGon John

    Gone

  • Islander
  • 4,158 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 06:42 AM

Bossy, on Jun 4 2003, 05:14 PM, said:

I have to jump in here and say that this is a totally incorrect statement. The only real funtion of guns is not to kill people. There is a fairly large portion of the population of Wisconsin that still uses guns for hunting. Why do they hunt? Because they need to feed their families. My brother relies on game to help supplement his family of 5's meager grocery budget, and this is not an uncommon occurance here or in a number of other states.

I was speaking of handguns; obviously hunting rifles are a seperate case.

I'd suggest that even they ought to be more tightly regulated-- say, some system where you're issued a rifle when you go out to hunt, and have to return it when you're done-- but I doubt that would garner much support, so... ;)

Quote

You can use a hammer just as easily to kill. Does that mean we should outlaw them?

A hammer's main function is to put a nail through a piece of wood; a gun's main function is to put a bullet through flesh (of some sort).

Yes, they are both technically tools, but I believe there's a distinction to be made...

Edited by John Burke, 05 June 2003 - 06:43 AM.


#32 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 07:23 AM

John Burke, on Jun 4 2003, 09:10 AM, said:

Question: Why do we actually care what the Founding Fathers would think, anyway?

I like the heck out of John Adams and Ben Franklin, they were brilliant men, but they were brilliant men who lived and died 200 years ago, in a completely different world from the one we inhabit now.  What if their opinion just isn't relevant anymore?

I think it's very possible that the Founding Fathers might have extended the Right to Bear Arms to the sort of arms we'd bear today.  That still doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, in a modern context, to allow the proliferation of devices whose only real function is to kill people...

(In the specific case of an bedridden man, as we see here, I can understand owning a gun.  Lacking the option of flight, he has a pressing need for protection.  For most of us, who could probably just as easily run away in a life-threatening situation... well, I respect your right to make a different choice, but I can't say I understand it...)
Thanks,John. That's what I was working my way around to saying..really. :p :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#33 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 07:44 AM

In this case, I think this guy was totally within his own rights  :cool:

I often find it hard most of the time to think about life over there in the pond with all these guns. Over here we rarely ever seem to have the need for them... although there is increasing pressure to let regular bobby policeman carry small arms... are criminals very much more violent over there or something?

I'm just not terribly sure what the difference is between the US and other Free World countries  :)

#34 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:11 AM

I am with the anti-gun crowd on one point only:

A gun's main function is, in fact, to kill. As John says, it can be used for other things, but that's it's primary function. I don't think it does anybody any good to shy away from that fact.

That being said, there is a time when force, even lethal force, is justified. Defense of self, others, and property is one of those cases, IMO.

John-- Your system would be most unpopular. ;). Almost by definition, any area where people hunt is relatively sparse. It would be a huge expense to setup 'gun renting' centers in that area, particularly since it would have to be on the government's dime. Plus, I can only imagine the pure rage of some farmer with 500 acres who has to drive 10 miles there and back to hunt on his own land. Plus, of course, sometimes the purpose of the gun is to protect a flock from wildlife; in that case, you need it at that instant.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#35 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:40 AM

Ilphi, on Jun 4 2003, 02:48 PM, said:

I often find it hard most of the time to think about life over there in the pond with all these guns. Over here we rarely ever seem to have the need for them... are criminals very much more violent over there or something?
Actually, no, although there is a popular myth that says so, in both places. Shootings of all kinds are actually rare in both places. Situations where a gun would be important even if unused are rare in both places. The only difference is that over here, it's a subject of debate, rather than the helplessness of the innocent against armed criminals when those rare things DO happen simply being accepted as if nothing could be done about it.

#36 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:52 AM

Ahh, I suppose that is true.

I'd be very interested to hear yours - and others - opinions on this British case of a Farmer who was jailed for defending his property with an illegaly held firearm. A few quotes to wet the whistle:

The episode began in August 1999 when Fred Barras, 16, and accomplice Brendon Fearon, 33, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.


Quote

Martin's farm was extremely remote and had been burgled many times
Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun.

Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

Quote

Martin had been burgled so many times that he had set up an elaborate network of look-out ladders and traps, even removing a stair to hinder intruders.

Three months before the shooting, crooks had broken into the house and taken £6,000 worth of furniture.

Burglar Fred Barras, 16, was killed while fleeing Martin's house
Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.

When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

http://news.bbc.co.u...olk/3009769.stm

#37 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 08:53 AM

^

The criminals should be put in jail, and the homeowner should be given a medal.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#38 usmarox

usmarox

    Honi soit y mal y Kevlar

  • Islander
  • 617 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 09:04 AM

Quote

The criminals should be put in jail, and the homeowner should be given a medal.

Yup.  Half the country agreed with you.

The other half stood there with the old standby:  "Guns are bad, mmmkay?  No, guns are bad.  GUNS ARE BAD! LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

If only I hadn't joined the army, I'd be able to go and show the Gun Control Network how dangerous firearms are in untrained hands  :glare:
Miscellaneous ramblings and utter negativity - my LJ

You are not free, whose liberty is won by other, more righteous souls.  You are merely protected.  You suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return.  Now, the time has come for you to pay for that freedom, and you will pay in the currency of honest toil and human blood."

Inquisitor Czevak, Address to the Council of Ryanti.  

And no less true for being fictional.


Two ears, one mouth.  Use them in that ratio.

#39 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 09:11 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jun 4 2003, 02:15 PM, said:

A gun's main function is, in fact, to kill. As John says, it can be used for other things, but that's it's primary function. I don't think it does anybody any good to shy away from that fact.
I respectfully disagree with you, Rov.

While it's true that some firearms are designed to kill, and we'd be absolutely correct to acknowledge that, it's equally true that some firearms are designed to punch holes in paper.

Consider the pistols used in Olympic target shooting events. They're hard to maintain, they need to be cleaned all the time, and they jam, but they're very, very accurate. Are they designed to kill? Are they designed to be defensive weapons? On the contrary, they're solely target pistols. Their design is simply not up to the rigors of defensive carry. Now, does that mean they can't be used to kill? Absolutely not. Just like the hammer in the earlier analogy, they can be misused.

Believe it or not, many, many rifles and pistols on the legal market today are designed to be target shooters.

Quote

That being said, there is a time when force, even lethal force, is justified. Defense of self, others, and property is one of those cases, IMO.

Local laws may vary. ;)

Quote

John-- Your system would be most unpopular. ;). Almost by definition, any area where people hunt is relatively sparse. It would be a huge expense to setup 'gun renting' centers in that area, particularly since it would have to be on the government's dime.

And

Quote

I'd suggest that even they ought to be more tightly regulated-- say, some system where you're issued a rifle when you go out to hunt, and have to return it when you're done-- but I doubt that would garner much support, so...

Wouldn't do this guy much good in this scenario... "Excuse me, Mr. Burglar, I have to go to the local armory to pick up a GI rifle..."

Besides, choosing and maintaining a firearm is a very personal thing. Weight, grip, balance, and trigger pull are all important aspects of properly using one. When I was shopping for my last purchase, I spent about 6 months reading brochures and test-firing at the range before I decided on the one I was going to buy, and from my experience, most responsible gun owners do the same.

Quote

Plus, I can only imagine the pure rage of some farmer with 500 acres who has to drive 10 miles there and back to hunt on his own land. Plus, of course, sometimes the purpose of the gun is to protect a flock from wildlife; in that case, you need it at that instant.

Which is often why people on ranches and such have gun racks in their trucks, and I know quite a few ranchers that carry a handgun when they're away from their trucks.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#40 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 10:15 AM

Quote

Rhea: I seriously doubt they could have envisioned what this country would become, or the fact that for most homeowners who have guns, the only people they hurt is the gun owner themselves or a member of the family.

I would disagree I think our founding fathers realized what the two best last ditch assurances are for keeping the government from trying to whittle away the Constitution.  That would be in form of a well armed populace who could make any attempt to oppress them as costly as possible and make them think twice about doing it.  It also leaves an armed pool of manpower for the secondary defense of the Constitution from the Federal Government was the state militias.  Now this role has largely been subjugated to the various State Guards with some states fielding fairly significant military forces.  

Quote

  John Burke: Yes, they are both technically tools, but I believe there's a distinction to be made...

I do target archery just as a hobby with a recurve bow.  The primary function of that bow as it was originally designed is to put a sharp pointy thing through flesh.  In many cases those arrows will make you just as dead as handgun and do it a whole lot more silently.  A good archer is actually capable of easily being more accurate than some handguns at longer ranges.  So shall we grab up all the bows and arrows because they can actually be more dangerous than a handgun in some ways?
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crime, Guns, Self-Defense

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users