Guns

[John Dibble]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

[John Dibble]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

[John Dibble]

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

Someone bigger and/or stronger than me - equipped with a gun, knife, baseball bat, pipe, other melee, or even nothing at all - who wishes me harm. In case you haven't noticed, criminals prefer to prey on the weak - they either do so by preying on those of lesser power than they or by ganging up on their victims. A knife, or any melee weapon, is not likely to be an effective defense against such an opponent - what's to stop them from grabbing your wrist, thus preventing you from striking. Further, proficiency with melee weapons is not as easy to achieve as with a gun - takes a lot more training, which the average citizen may not have.

To put this in context, let me give you an example. A 120 lb. woman is walking home, a 200 lb. man confronts her and intends to rape then kill her. She has a knife. Do you really like her chances? Now look at the same situation, but the woman has a gun. How have her chances changed?

EDIT: To further prove my point

[Redefeatbush04]

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

Someone bigger and/or stronger than me - equipped with a gun, knife, baseball bat, pipe, other melee, or even nothing at all - who wishes me harm. In case you haven't noticed, criminals prefer to prey on the weak - they either do so by preying on those of lesser power than they or by ganging up on their victims. A knife, or any melee weapon, is not likely to be an effective defense against such an opponent - what's to stop them from grabbing your wrist, thus preventing you from striking. Further, proficiency with melee weapons is not as easy to achieve as with a gun - takes a lot more training, which the average citizen may not have.

To put this in context, let me give you an example. A 120 lb. woman is walking home, a 200 lb. man confronts her and intends to rape then kill her. She has a knife. Do you really like her chances? Now look at the same situation, but the woman has a gun. How have her chances changed?

EDIT: To further prove my point

This is why I don't debate you Dibble

Yes guns are probablly better for self-defense against a 300 pound guy. I don't see why you need an assault weapon to do it but I get your point. I still don't think guns are "good". If we lived in a highly civilized world we wouldn't need them.....outside of hunting (which i have absolutely no problem with if you use the animal for food/ect.). It makes sense to me why firearms are necessary for a society in todays world - I'll never argue that they aren't - however murder is never good - and guns are built for the sole purpose of killing (whether self defense, anger, aggression, or greed).

Statistics show that among the developed world the US has one of the highest murder rates. Dibble - this is what fuels gun control advocates. If you can PROVE to them the reason that the US has a higher murder rate than Candada, australia, japan, and most of europe they would most likely back down on their rabid desire to control + regulate firearms. Those statistics have always bothered me. Why is the "greatest nation" less civilized.

 

[J.R. Brown]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Guns were created for killing, period. Not self-defense. Killing. I'm against devices that are made for killing. If I'm attacked, I'll instictively fight for my life with all of my natural strength, but without a gun. If I may be killed. So be it. It was my fate and you can't get around that.

[John Dibble]

Yes guns are probablly better for self-defense against a 300 pound guy. I don't see why you need an assault weapon to do it but I get your point. I still don't think guns are "good". If we lived in a highly civilized world we wouldn't need them.....outside of hunting (which i have absolutely no problem with if you use the animal for food/ect.). It makes sense to me why firearms are necessary for a society in todays world - I'll never argue that they aren't - however murder is never good - and guns are built for the sole purpose of killing (whether self defense, anger, aggression, or greed).

"Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.

Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?

His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral." - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

"If all people were righteous no one would need to be brave." - Angesilaus II

Basically, I view guns as an unfortunate necessity. There are evil people in the world, and usually such people can only be deterred with force. Now, I'll admit assault weapons generally are not practical for self-defense(moreso for home defense, or in the possibility that your country is invaded), but I still think that honest citizens should be able to purchase them(it'd be fine if they had to keep them in the house, though, just so long as they could attain them).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, of course I've debated this on a number of occassions. Now, I think the reasons for higher crime rates are numerous, but not much to do with guns. For instance, Switzerland hands out machine guns, and they've got the lowest crime rate on the planet. Also, statistics show that when legal gun ownership increases, crime decreases - especially with concealed carry. Kennesaw, Georgia actually requires homeowners to have a handgun(with exceptions) and regardless of increasing population they have maintained a crime rate that is around 1/10 of what it was before the law was enacted. Criminals above all fear an armed victim retaliating, as they do value their own lives, so the statistics are consistent with that logic. Also, gun ownership is at a record high, and has been increasing over the last couple decades, but violent crime has greatly decreased.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

What I'd be more likely to blame the higher crime rate on is differences in economic conditions, demographics, climate(higher temperature is shown to cause increased irritability and aggression, and the crime rate goes accordingly during summer/winter), culture, and various other conditions that are different in different countries.

[KEmperor]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Guns were created for killing, period. Not self-defense. Killing. I'm against devices that are made for killing. If I'm attacked, I'll instictively fight for my life with all of my natural strength, but without a gun. If I may be killed. So be it. It was my fate and you can't get around that.

Now you don't even want cops to have guns?  Yeah, that's a real brilliant move.

[J.R. Brown]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Guns were created for killing, period. Not self-defense. Killing. I'm against devices that are made for killing. If I'm attacked, I'll instictively fight for my life with all of my natural strength, but without a gun. If I may be killed. So be it. It was my fate and you can't get around that.

Now you don't even want cops to have guns? Yeah, that's a real brilliant move.

Of course I want cops to have guns. Are you some sort of moron. The man said bailiffs in a closed courtroom. You know closed one-on one confrontation. And I didn't say it chief, the experienced courtroom bailiff said it.

Why do you people want guns anyway. Don't give me that self-defense crap. I bet you yearn to kill. You just hope and pray everyday that you'll be able to use your oozy on some jackass who decides to rob you.

[Redefeatbush04]

The biggest mistake that they made in that courtroom:

most states have laws that the guns in courtrooms can have only 1 bullet in them. Apparently georgia isn't one of those states.

[John Dibble]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following. It must be noted that the bailiff was a woman. Nothing against women in the police force and such, but those in a position where large, strong male suspects may need to be detained should be physically strong enough to do so. That was not the case here. Now, the guns in court could be argued either way, but that also needs to be a considered factor in this kind of case before leaping to a universal conclusion.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001765.htm for more opinions on that.

Also, there are devices nowadays that could have been used to prevent such a thing. A proper holster could have prevented it. Or, alternatively, bailiffs could use 'smart guns' which require some sort of magnetic or electronic transmission ring or bracelet that allows only the legal owner of the gun to actually fire it(though some people complain about possible failure of these).

Now, I also want to note I never claimed guns to be a universal defense - nothing is foolproof. I only claim that for self-defense, they are the best method practically available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember, defenders can create weapons of death for defense. Many weapons are developed for that reason - protecting the lives of those the makers value. Now, like any tool, guns can be used by good or evil forces. Remember though, if there were no evil people in the world, guns would be pretty much unnecessary in today's society. Fact is though, there are evil people, and when push comes to shove I'd rather that decent people be able to defend themselves against evil. Your life should be held in higher regard than that of someone who does not value life - so you should do everything you can to fight for it, and that includes using a gun. At least get a stun-gun, and a tazer for if that fails, Rutzay - it's better than your bare hands, and neither were made for killing.

Also, I must remind you that in the majority of cases where a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is not even fired - the criminal will run away. If a shot is fired, it is usual still that the criminal is not harmed - it's a miss or a warning and the criminal will run.

[J.R. Brown]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following. It must be noted that the bailiff was a woman. Nothing against women in the police force and such, but those in a position where large, strong male suspects may need to be detained should be physically strong enough to do so. That was not the case here. Now, the guns in court could be argued either way, but that also needs to be a considered factor in this kind of case before leaping to a universal conclusion.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001765.htm for more opinions on that.

Also, there are devices nowadays that could have been used to prevent such a thing. A proper holster could have prevented it. Or, alternatively, bailiffs could use 'smart guns' which require some sort of magnetic or electronic transmission ring or bracelet that allows only the legal owner of the gun to actually fire it(though some people complain about possible failure of these).

Now, I also want to note I never claimed guns to be a universal defense - nothing is foolproof. I only claim that for self-defense, they are the best method practically available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember, defenders can create weapons of death for defense. Many weapons are developed for that reason - protecting the lives of those the makers value. Now, like any tool, guns can be used by good or evil forces. Remember though, if there were no evil people in the world, guns would be pretty much unnecessary in today's society. Fact is though, there are evil people, and when push comes to shove I'd rather that decent people be able to defend themselves against evil. Your life should be held in higher regard than that of someone who does not value life - so you should do everything you can to fight for it, and that includes using a gun. At least get a stun-gun, and a tazer for if that fails, Rutzay - it's better than your bare hands, and neither were made for killing.

Also, I must remind you that in the majority of cases where a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is not even fired - the criminal will run away. If a shot is fired, it is usual still that the criminal is not harmed - it's a miss or a warning and the criminal will run.

You'd be surprised what a woman can do against a 250 pound man. My mother has worked on a psyche ward for 20 years and has had to take down many large, violent men.

Basically we need stronger more effective procedures for obtaining a gun so these criminals can't get them. Criminal backgrounds along with psychological evaluations. Even the most normal looking person may have some subconscious rage that may force that person to snap and use a gun to release that rage. I know this may prevent regular citizen's from get guns, but the most important thing is that we make it more difficult for criminals.

We also need tougher penalty's for offenders who use guns to commit crimes, and especially for those who sell guns illegally. as a deterent for staying away from guns. We need more cops, stronger undercover units that speciallize in taking guns away from those that obtain illegal weapons and sell them to known offenders.

[John Dibble]

We also need tougher penalty's for offenders who use guns to commit crimes

At least we agree here. The Libertarian Party's position on this is that those who commit crimes with guns and those whose negligence with their guns causes harm should be severely punished.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

[J.R. Brown]

2002 National Center for Injury Control Report

United States

Homicide with a Firearm:
All races, both sexes

Ages 15-24
Homicide: Ranked 2nd Among Injury's for that group
 Firearm  4,317 82.7%
 Cut/Pierce 425 8.1%

Ages 25-34
Homicide: Ranked 3rd
Firearm-3,465 77.2%
Cut/pierce-499 11.1%

I also found this site. I thought it was pretty interesting.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

[J.R. Brown]

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

I think I'll take my chances with nothing but my bare hands or a the baseball bat under my bed.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

I think I'll take my chances with nothing but my bare hands or a the baseball bat under my bed.

Your choice. At least you've got a bat. At least for home defese get a dog - criminals don't like dealing with them, even small ones. And do yourself another self-protection favor by avoiding trouble areas and situations in the first place.

[J.R. Brown]

We don't have many troubel areas here in Iowa City, but I'll try. I think I'm pretty safe in my dorm room. We watch each other's backs on my floor. I was just kidding about the bat. However, if someone does get into the dorms somehow and into my room, I could always wack them with my laptop.

[John Dibble]

We don't have many troubel areas here in Iowa City, but I'll try. I think I'm pretty safe in my dorm room. We watch each other's backs on my floor. I was just kidding about the bat. However, if someone does get into the dorms somehow and into my room, I could always wack them with my laptop.

WHAT!? NO! YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING TO DEFEND YOUR COMPUTER! LIFE IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT IT!

[TheWildCard]

...oozy on some jackass who decides to rob you.

Its spelled Uzi actually...

















... And before you say anything no I don't own an Uzi or a gun for that matter. I just know it from  playing Goldeneye 007.

[Gabu]

I like living where I do.  I think we had like one single murder in the entire year of 2004; it's a ridiculously safe neighborhood.

[J.R. Brown]

...oozy on some jackass who decides to rob you.

Its spelled Uzi actually...

















... And before you say anything no I don't own an Uzi or a gun for that matter. I just know it from  playing Goldeneye 007.

I need to brush up on my gun lingo.