RE: Why I Carry A Gun (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

shannie -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:08:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

You'd have to give examples of these 'unthinkable atrocities' that have occurred from not having guns for me to answer that.


Just as ONE example:  Read a little about "The Rape of Nanking."

(Not to mention the disarming of the Jews as one of the first steps toward the holocaust).

On the other hand, read Orwell's "Homage to Cataluna" or read the "St.
Crispin's Day Speech" from Henry V (Shakespeare).  The primary right (and need) for the common citizen to bear arms was not
about defending against crime (although it can certainly come in handy
in that regard too).

In the grand scheme of things, we'll all be gone in a hundred years -- no matter what.  But when a man goes down shooting, in defense of his children or his wife or his elderly mother, instead of standing by, watching helplessly in horror -- there's got to be more dignity and nobility for our (often violent) little existence in the cosmos.

And for those (for whom I have respect and affection) who say that there is no chance of the common man defending himself against "the government" (our own government, or invaders) anyway -- that fact is called into question by what's been going on in Iraq for the last several years.  If our government (or any) was so effective,  thus making it  futile to fight against them, that "war" would have been over in three days.

I know that, after a century of relative comfort, we tend to think we are outside the course of hsitory (I've often felt that myself) -- but we are not. 



Aneirin -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:08:19 AM)

As to people breaking into houses to attack people or rob their possessions, how good is your household security ?

Here in Britain, houses are pretty secure, that is during the day when we are in, the external door is locked, at night, dead locked and often with other bolts and things securing the door. Windows tend to have locking devices on them as well. Often it is under the terms of household insurance, to reduce claims made against them, they insist on recognised methods of reliable household security and in nearly all cases expect alarm systems based upon eith passive or active IR sensors positioned in the logical places.

Not only that, but doors, windows and frames have moved on a long way over the years, UPVC being the norm with toughened double glazed glass units, not the easiest things to break at the best of times. Modern houses, and all security measures taken, people inside are pretty secure these days.

I live in an older property, but still, when I am in there, the external door is locked and chained, chained such that if I have to open the door to anyone, I do have a rather hefty chain preventing the door from being slammed open.

Automobiles, never do I leave them unlocked, in fact, nothing, if it has a lock, then if not in use, it is locked.

Though there are instances with nutters getting into properties to cause problems, it is often they gain entry through a break down in security.






Raechard -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:08:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
And I cant think of a time in mine, my family or my friends lives where they needed a gun to protect themselves, what is it that you are protecting yourself against?

I've yet to be in a car accident. I think that's a poor argument for not wearing my seat belt.

Not many people seem to be walking around with body armour either considering their real fears for random violence.



DarkSteven -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:09:36 AM)

Interesting perspectives especially from the non-US people.

In the US we have been though a very bizarre episode where the conservatives who normally champion limited government and gun rights have controlled the government and expanded the police state.  Meanwhile the liberals who normally would champion government and gun control have been terrified of the state's overreaching.  I find it ironic that the original stated aim of the right to bear arms, defense from the state, has been downplayed in favor of defense from thugs, despite the fact that the state scares me more now than ever.







Lorr47 -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:14:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

You'd have to give examples of these 'unthinkable atrocities' that have occurred from not having guns for me to answer that.


Just as ONE example:  Read a little about "The Rape of Nanking."

(Not to mention the disarming of the Jews as one of the first steps toward the holocaust).

On the other hand, read Orwell's "Homage to Cataluna" or read the "St.
Crispin's Day Speech" from Henry V (Shakespeare).  The primary right (and need) for the common citizen to bear arms was not
about defending against crime (although it can certainly come in handy
in that regard too).

In the grand scheme of things, we'll all be gone in a hundred years -- no matter what.  But when a man goes down shooting, in defense of his children or his wife or his elderly mother, instead of standing by, watching helplessly in horror -- there's got to be more dignity and nobility for our (often violent) little existence in the cosmos.

And for those (for whom I have respect and affection) who say that there is no chance of the common man defending himself against "the government" (our own government, or invaders) anyway -- that fact is called into question by what's been going on in Iraq for the last several years.  If our government (or any) was so effective,  thus making it  futile to fight against them, that "war" would have been over in three days.

I know that, after a century of relative comfort, we tend to think we are outside the course of hsitory (I've often felt that myself) -- but we are not. 



Applause.



SteelofUtah -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:15:50 AM)

WOW Mad,

This is a weird one for me. I don't think we necessarily Agree on the issue of Guns however I am unable to find one thing in your Post that I could Disagree with.

Nothing really to Add to this Thread other than Guns are like Statistics, they can always be argued to fall into alignment with someone particular point of view. The Argument is mute. No matter how many stories you offer FOR no matter how Valid, it is easy to come up with just as many Valid in the other direction.

Argue over something more Valid like Stealing Candy From Babies, Saving tomorrows Teeth from Todays Sugar or just a Cruel Activity?  Equally as productive and at least it would be something I have yet to hear argued.

Steel



MadRabbit -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:16:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit
quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
And I cant think of a time in mine, my family or my friends lives where they needed a gun to protect themselves, what is it that you are protecting yourself against?

I've yet to be in a car accident. I think that's a poor argument for not wearing my seat belt.

Not many people seem to be walking around with body armour either considering their real fears for random violence.



Nor do I see many people living in plastic bubbles to avoid the flu, but they do get flu shots.

Or walking to work to avoid being in a traffic accident.

There is "reasonable countermeasures" to "reasonable risk".

Subjective to personal interpretation? Certainly.

Some people might find wearing body armor 24/7 to be a reasonable countermeasure, but just because most don't doesn't mean that we should ban body armor because it's useless. It certainly isn't unless your going to make an argument that body armor won't have any effect if you get shot.

You might find carrying a gun to be an unreasoble countermeasure, but it certainly can and does have an impact in the worst case scenario.



beargonewild -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:19:13 AM)

~FR~

The interesting thing about this discussion is the polarization of people when it comes to protecting a person's rights and safety. The huge paradox I see is the fact that we all define rights and privileges and personal safety yet trying to balance that with the greater good for all. Many people, from personal experiences, are adamant about their right to carry a weapon, many people are adamantly opposed to the general population being able to bear arms. Each are right in their own way which does not mean that one group is more right than the other. Whether the answer is for each person is to be carrying a gun or whether the answer is
every person being totally unarmed I do not know. Maybe the answer is some sort of a balance between the two? I just feel that presuming one side or the other side is the right answer is a dangerous way to think. As I said, that is just my feeling.
  One of the biggest conflict I see is people opposed to guns ( read people in a strictly generalized sense) feeling that society is too gun happy and the pro gun people (read people in a strictly generalized sense) feel their right to bear arms is being violated. Many people here know my stance on carrying weapons and on a few occasions I've had to be abruptly reminded that people who I was opposed to, I also have to respect their right to bear arms. It may be a necessary evil to live in a community which has to be armed to have a sense of safety and that I can accept even though I may not understand that mode of thinking. 



Aneirin -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:22:37 AM)

Then if the reason for the ' Right to bear arms ' is in case of your government gets out of hand, no one should be actively, daily carrying a gun, you should have them all locked away at home, just in case, that what if ever happens.



Lorr47 -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:23:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

As to people breaking into houses to attack people or rob their possessions, how good is your household security ?

Here in Britain, houses are pretty secure, that is during the day when we are in, the external door is locked, at night, dead locked and often with other bolts and things securing the door. Windows tend to have locking devices on them as well. Often it is under the terms of household insurance, to reduce claims made against them, they insist on recognised methods of reliable household security and in nearly all cases expect alarm systems based upon eith passive or active IR sensors positioned in the logical places.

Not only that, but doors, windows and frames have moved on a long way over the years, UPVC being the norm with toughened double glazed glass units, not the easiest things to break at the best of times. Modern houses, and all security measures taken, people inside are pretty secure these days.

I live in an older property, but still, when I am in there, the external door is locked and chained, chained such that if I have to open the door to anyone, I do have a rather hefty chain preventing the door from being slammed open.

Automobiles, never do I leave them unlocked, in fact, nothing, if it has a lock, then if not in use, it is locked.

Though there are instances with nutters getting into properties to cause problems, it is often they gain entry through a break down in security.






In the two instances I cited above the bad guys broke out the windows, reached in and unlocked the security devices.  By the time the cops bothered to show up the damage to the occupants had occurred.   I suppose I could put three quarter inch plywood over all my windows but then they  would probably just pry it off.  Perhaps I could make my house into a moated fortress to protect those breaking in from harm.  Er, nope from now on a shotgun blast will solve the matter. 



Raechard -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:27:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shannie
Just as ONE example:  Read a little about "The Rape of Nanking."
(Not to mention the disarming of the Jews as one of the first steps toward the holocaust).

Fair point but even armed would things have gone much differently? I assume they gave up their weapons due to fear of the state, so really didn't fancy their chances against the state at the time even with weapons.
quote:


On the other hand, read Orwell's "Homage to Cataluna" or read the "St.
Crispin's Day Speech" from Henry V (Shakespeare).  The primary right (and need) for the common citizen to bear arms was not
about defending against crime (although it can certainly come in handy
in that regard too).

These people write fiction.
quote:


In the grand scheme of things, we'll all be gone in a hundred years -- no matter what.  But when a man goes down shooting, in defense of his children or his wife or his elderly mother, instead of standing by, watching helplessly in horror -- there's got to be more dignity and nobility for our (often violent) little existence in the cosmos.

That is very romantic but how about the jilted spouse that kills his family because I hear more of that these days to be honest with you.
quote:


And for those (for whom I have respect and affection) who say that there is no chance of the common man defending himself against "the government" (our own government, or invaders) anyway -- that fact is called into question by what's been going on in Iraq for the last several years.  If our government (or any) was so effective,  thus making it  futile to fight against them, that "war" would have been over in three days.

People should have fought the government by now I really can't understand what they are waiting for. Often when you hear on the news someone opposing the state they are written off as mad cult members. It happens from time to time and they lose because no one joins their fight. Everyone is self involved nowadays so they don't notice what is happening in other areas. Therefore the chances of anyone joining a fight against the government is slim, no matter how noble your cause, you can't fight the government alone. You also don’t need guns to fight the government the majority of casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are caused by IED’s not gun fights.




shannie -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:27:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Then if the reason for the ' Right to bear arms ' is in case of your government gets out of hand, no one should be actively, daily carrying a gun, you should have them all locked away at home, just in case, that what if ever happens.


Perhaps you've hit on something ......



MadRabbit -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:28:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Then if the reason for the ' Right to bear arms ' is in case of your government gets out of hand, no one should be actively, daily carrying a gun, you should have them all locked away at home, just in case, that what if ever happens.


Right.

How about a time locked safe? You can open it during a 5 minute window between 3:15 A.M and 3:20 A.M after submitting your birth certificate, drivers license, SSN card, bank statements, tax returns, phone bill, utility bill, health insurance card, 3 credit cards, and an ounce of blood for verification that you are the owner of the gun in the safe.



BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:29:09 AM)

WE have concealed weapons permits..WE need them around the ranch, some very dangerous critters, bears and Russian hogs, I carry it in the big city's  we often are in for business,the 2 legged critters are a very dangerous game,WE do business in the Washington , Baltimore area downtown so its iffy some times late at night getting back to the parking garage or hotel..We both are very proficient in Martial arts however surround by a gang of thuds makes some fire power neccessary..Just my two cents..bounty



SteelofUtah -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:31:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

Then if the reason for the ' Right to bear arms ' is in case of your government gets out of hand, no one should be actively, daily carrying a gun, you should have them all locked away at home, just in case, that what if ever happens.


I find this thinking funny.

What good does a Gun do you when it is Locked away? I mean what purpose does it serve when it is unloaded and under lock and key?

Should someone break into your home and come upon you either Loading your Gun or trying to unlock it from it tomb, you will now become the most valid threat and nearly GUARANTEE you will be fired upon.

As a Child there was a Loaded gun in EVERY ROOM of our home. As Children we all knew what Guns were and that they were DEADLY they didn't get played with, and should a friend ever try to play with them they were corrected and stopped immediatly, Then again My Parents also WATCHED us when we played not just left us to our activities, We had to play in the Yard in View of the Front Window or the Back Yard in View of the Patio. All Guns were not in Plain View but with in 5 to 10 feet of you at any time.

I was taught to Respect and Admire the firearm as it is usually the great equalizer that takes you from being Prey to being an Adversary. It Levels the playing field and gives you a fighting chance SHOULD you need it, and when you don't need it it stands as a reminder that you are NOT Prey and this individual is willing to give you a run for your money should you try to treat me like I am.

That being said, not counting Hunting and Target Practice how many times have I fired a Gun? None. Does that change the fact that I still think they are necessary? Not in the least.

Steel



MadRabbit -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:37:44 AM)

You know...the arguments of "There is no reason to have to defend yourself in today's society" always bugged me, so I took a minute with google to pull up some statistics on England (since our English posters tend to favor that one).

Statistically, there is roughly 200,000 traffic accidents in the U.K and less than 3 million violent crimes among a population of over 50 million.

But yet...taking personal precautions to protect one's self like we do with seat belts and air bags in traffic accidents is not grounded in reality.



shannie -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:39:31 AM)

quote:
These people write fiction.


Homage to Catalonia is political journalist and novelist George Orwell's personal account of his experiences and observations in the Spanish Civil War, written in the first person.  .

Shakespeare's speech is also about a real battle, and I mentioned it because it captures the spirit of men refusing to be rendered sheep.

Why don't people "stand up" sooner, rather than later?  Now that is the mystery, isn't it?  But just because they don't -- doesn't mean they should be deprived of the means to do so when they are finally backed into a corner.



Aneirin -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:42:09 AM)

People gaining entry by forcible means, I do understand the need if something is available to 'repel boarders', but what is the aim, this is where the law gets fuzzy, for they say, reasonable force, that being a force which is reasonable to be applied to stop the action happening. But what is the action, the intruders deciding not to carry out their actions, or the intruders deciding to get the hell out of the situation, how much force is necessary in each situation, what is reasonable force for the desired effect, what is the desired effect ? To most of us, that is intruders not gaining entry in the first place, a weapon should be an absolute last resort when bodily harm is threatened, in which case, harm is equal to harm, like for like.

That is the reality of the situation, as it happens on a day to day basis, not the reality the police and law courts  in a so called lawful society will look at the situation, until your case is proved. There is no point in spending x years in prison for protecting yourself with the wrong level of force, using deadly force when all that was required was for an intruder to be aware you are armed and with intent to use the arm if they, the intruder does not desist in their actions.

Personally though, my feelings are that if anyone overcomes all your security to gain access to your home to carry out whatever when they are inside to whoever, they deserve all they get, as to me, my home is where the heart is, mine and that of my family, a locked door denies entry, ignore the denial and they deserve whatever comes their way. This, I feel, though the lawmakers have to be careful, is a situation where they should be more considerate of a person's human right to protect themselves and their loved ones.




colouredin -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 9:49:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadRabbit

quote:

ORIGINAL: colouredin
And I cant think of a time in mine, my family or my friends lives where they needed a gun to protect themselves, what is it that you are protecting yourself against?


I've yet to be in a car accident. I think that's a poor argument for not wearing my seat belt.


So maybe i am living in a fantasy world, or maybe I am just blessed but no actually because the attacks that I have faced are not with guns or knives but with words. You are most likely to be attacked by someone you know, not accousted by a stranger with a gun.

Its a different way of life here I guess, I know loads and loads of people who have ahd car accidents and none with any experiance of guns. Maybe thats just here though.

The thing is if someone wants to kill you they dont need a gun.

I agree you cant ban something in mass usage, here its never been ok to have a gun unless you are going hunting. Its not as much of a problem here. Maybe if I moved to the US I would suddenly have an urge to own a gun.

You see I may be lucky maybe thats it but I have never been violently attacked by anyone ever, but thats not about my class or where I live because my lovable but gobby sister is always in fights. I just think so often we look at statistics against the fact that we all have some responsibility in it. But then we never really look at the statistics properly either. Who is the most afraid of violent crime? Women and the older generation. Who are the least likely victims of violent crime? Women and the older generation.



Lorr47 -> RE: Why I Carry A Gun (12/28/2008 10:11:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

People gaining entry by forcible means, I do understand the need if something is available to 'repel boarders', but what is the aim, this is where the law gets fuzzy, for they say, reasonable force, that being a force which is reasonable to be applied to stop the action happening. But what is the action, the intruders deciding not to carry out their actions, or the intruders deciding to get the hell out of the situation, how much force is necessary in each situation, what is reasonable force for the desired effect, what is the desired effect ? To most of us, that is intruders not gaining entry in the first place, a weapon should be an absolute last resort when bodily harm is threatened, in which case, harm is equal to harm, like for like.

That is the reality of the situation, as it happens on a day to day basis, not the reality the police and law courts  in a so called lawful society will look at the situation, until your case is proved. There is no point in spending x years in prison for protecting yourself with the wrong level of force, using deadly force when all that was required was for an intruder to be aware you are armed and with intent to use the arm if they, the intruder does not desist in their actions.

Personally though, my feelings are that if anyone overcomes all your security to gain access to your home to carry out whatever when they are inside to whoever, they deserve all they get, as to me, my home is where the heart is, mine and that of my family, a locked door denies entry, ignore the denial and they deserve whatever comes their way. This, I feel, though the lawmakers have to be careful, is a situation where they should be more considerate of a person's human right to protect themselves and their loved ones.




A very colorful police chief got into trouble when he recommended that everyone buy a shot gun.  If a person starts to break in to your house take the shotgun and a phone into the bathroom.  Call the police.  If the person starts to break in the bathroom fire the shotgun through the door and reload.  Just make sure it is not your spouse.  He recommended a shotgun because it was point and shoot.  The press was hanging him for saying such an atrocious thing until an impatient Circuit Court Judge upon being questioned said the the officer was being conservative.  They asked how the officer could be felt to be conservative.  The judge responded "because you are legally allowed to shoot the bastard at the front door as he puts his damn foot over your transom."  In this State there is no duty to retreat in your own home.  However, if the shotgun blast blows him out of the door, you might want to drag his body back into the house. If you really want to be safe from prosecution in this State follow the officer's suggestion.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625