I do not agree with this. Just take the possibility of the government trying to curb and eventually eliminating your personal freedom and with that the defense against it. You would be helpless in case you need to form a militia to fight for your rights as an individual. That is a very important part of gun ownership. It is the way in the US. It keeps the government and its over-bearing power in check.
Europeans on the whole do not think the way the Americans do, they are thinking more of government being the big nanny and the institution to dole out rights. (I am by the way German, just living in the States)
That’s not true in all states. Here in Florida, where we have the “Stand Your Ground” law, you are not required to attempt to flee.
And of course, in states with a Castle Doctrine law, you’re not required to flee when you’re in your own home.
For the record: I like guns. I own several, and I enjoy target shooting. I also have a carry permit, and carry regularly. None of my guns has ever shot a person, and owning guns has not transformed me from a non-violent person into a violent one.
Yes I do realize that it varies state to state, was just giving an example. We do not have a “Castle Doctrine” in PA but we are also not required to attempt to flee. Plain and simple, in PA, someone breaks in you have every right to defend yourself and that includes using deadly force.
So now the government knows every person who has a firearm except for those that are holding them illegally. Where exactly is the sense in that? Do you realise where that could leave you?
It applies to all rational people, even semi rational people.
Irrationality should not be fought with irrationality, which is always the case if you give the authority over your actions away to the almighty powers that try to rule you.
I believe citizens should be able to own guns. I would like to pick “Everyone that is NOT A CRIMINAL should own a gun” however I don’t agree with it. There are a few people I would be scared to see holding a gun. Being in the military I have no issue with them and feel comfortable with them, however not everyone has experience with guns and some just don’t feel comfortable around them. Those that don’t feel comfortable or have little to no experience I think are more liable to have an accident when dealing with them.
I had a friend who died when we were 15ish because a friend and him were playing “cops and robbers” with real guns and neither were experienced enough to know ALWAYS check if they are loaded when handling them at all. One of them was and its a tragic thing.
I think owning guns are good for protection and sport. However if you own a gun I think everyone (reasonable age) in the household should feel comfortable with how to shoot a gun and how it (the one(s)) you own function.
Not necessarily into the face, but the hand perhaps or the foot. I would first threaten him back of course, trying to avoid a shot. But if the guy insists, and if it turns out to be his face that gets the bullet, I would not be sorry.
What if he was too quick and snatched while you weren’t looking, would you chase and try shooting the hand or foot? The bum is just trying to feed himself and his bum family, he doesn’t want harm you.
Also, once I become president or ruler of the world Datura I’m going to make a small requirement of a self defense and firing class. I will also consider replacing bullets with strong tranquilizing darts so misfires and accidents won’t cause lasting results like a shot to the face would.
Again most people would in fact let them go and in MOST states you would have to by law. Using a gun is not a choice anyone has to make unless it is absolutely necessary in the situation.
Well good thing there’s no chance of you becoming president anytime soon! Legal gun owners would have darts while criminals would have bullets!
That’s a point I just don’t understand why ‘anti’ gun people don’t understand (ok that may have been the worst sentence I ever put together). They don’t understand criminals could care less about the law, that’s why they are called CRIMINALS. They could care less if every potentially dangerous thing was banned … they would STILL get it illegally!
Really, that would not happen. I am very alert at all times. I would not shoot a fleeing guy, the danger to my life is over at that point.
His action against me is an act of violence, no matter his motivation. This very act is intent to harm me, his interpretation does not make a bit of difference. Violence is violence. Theft is theft.
Your shot to the face is a strawman Mr.-want-to-be-ruler
Truly, I would not mind the idea of having a tranquilizer gun. But the laws can be twisted so that a surviving attacker would then turn around and you, as the victim, will be violated again, this time by the courts who will find you the guilty party because you defended yourself against this bum who has a sob story of some kind to get the pity vote…
That seems correct.
It seems useful when an act has been done with firearms and when these firearms have been taken by authorities. It seems useful for the investigation.
This could be used the same way with cars and VIN number i guess.
It is important to mention that the freedom to have guns shouldn’t be an issue here. I’d like to see what could have be done when a rational gun owner uses it as part of other liberties he was granted to have.
IMO, there are quite a lot of action from rational gun owners that does not fit into everyday life…
Now, I guess it will depend where we put the rationality line. That something discutable as well…
That presupposes that a right has to be given by authority. We, all humans, have a right to use whatever means we have to defend ourselves against any attack, may it be a criminal or a ruler/government.
There is an EXCELLENT POINT that hasn’t been touched on yet. When I first got my LTCF back in the 80s I talked to a few cops I knew and asked them all the ‘what if’ questions. I was told point blank by a PA State Police Officer “Don’t wound them, Kill them” … when I asked why he said 9 times out of 10 when someone wounds a criminal they usually have to go through years of litigation FROM THE CRIMINAL. Most often than not the litigation doesn’t succeed BUT the costs just to defend yourself can bankrupt you.
They have a saying in this state “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” … Meaning if your life is threatened shoot and shoot to kill. There MAY be an investigation but your chances are better than dying.
Oh no, it wasn’t a question. I just wanted to point the line between what can be rational and irrational for a gun owner who uses his gun. But I guess we also have courts of law to debate these situations…
Yes, that is a very important consideration when you defend yourself. It is really a shame that the court system is being so abused with the help of inverted morality. And the power of this inversion is given through the sanctioning by the victims themselves. They support the mushy laws, they support the legislature that creates monsters, such as you mentioned dc, against them. Perhaps only through ignorance, perhaps from laziness to think, perhaps through discarding morality as inconsequential. Moral agnosticism has its victory and with that its toll, we pay for it.
The willingness of the good to suffer at the hands of the evil is a self abasement, an abdication to serve ones highest value: life itself. There is no question in my mind that using a weapon in defense is moral and can not be denied by any pragmatism that seems a good solution to the people who like to control all things we do.
Truly, I would not mind the idea of having a tranquilizer gun. But the laws can be twisted so that a surviving attacker would then turn around and you, as the victim, will be violated again, this time by the courts who will find you the guilty party because you defended yourself against this bum who has a sob story of some kind to get the pity vote…
Assuming he was a rational bum, not a thug bum, I think he would understand why you darted him.
Well, one of the islands I own has a pretty decent navy, which is the better than the amount of countries you have, which is none.
Point being I would have regular law abiding citizens with non-bullet guns to prevent accidents and have the law do what they want with the robbers. I would also encourage criminals to rob with the tranquility guns.
That is the point of this discussion I would say most people who own a gun are very responsible in how they handle them. Only the press likes to fear monger, they are also on the side of the makers of laws that like to control us, and therefor it is in their interest to only report on things that fit their agenda.
Courts and makers of laws are as corrupt or reasoned as the population itself. So I do not have great hopes for rationality to be the arbiter at this time.
