James, do you think everyone would be better off if only a tiny amount of people had guns, like in the UK and Australia? Even if criminals had guns and people didn't I am still pretty much against arming everyone, in self defence, as it just makes everything more dangerous. With a gun there is no "second chance" as such. Trigger is pulled, person on the end dies. You get it wrong, there is no way they are going to survive, unlike with other weapons. Someone doesn't have to be a criminal to do this, they could be normal, and enraged over something, you know that.
this isn't worded clearly for me... i'm not getting the full gist of your question i don't think.... but i feel that if you are being attacked by an armed assailant, either a criminal or simply an enraged neighbor, and you are not armed... well the only person that's "more dangerous" for is you. and no one said anything about "arming everyone".... but one should damned sure have the right to bear arms if he so chooses, and has a clean record.
i actually would like to see a standardized psychological test and a literacy test as well... but, i can live without them. bottom line is if someone wants to harm you, they will... if you can talk them out of it or run away... well, you can choose one of those options just as easily when you do have a gun as when you don't, and in fact that is the standard of the law here.... you may ONLY use deadly force if your life, or anyone else's, is in imminent danger and you have no other recourse. the laws are very detailed and you have to take a course to get the license to carry a concealed weapon.
i think this whole subject is common sense and shouldn't have to be discussed really.... but, i mean... are you asking me if i think it would be a good idea to write laws to somehow guarantee that irresponsible people can never get their hands on guns? like... as in people who pass the legal requirements but
might make a wrong choice to use the weapon incorrectly at some point?... no, i do not. no way... you can't "child-proof" society, and you certainly shouldn't deny the overwhelming majority of responsible gun-owners the right to defend themselves based on the irresponsible actions of the few. you don't deny everyone the right to drive simply because some may fuck up and drive drunk and kill people (i know you love that analogy and i'll address it later), no.... you punish the offenders, take away their DL, etc... it's all you can do other than some PSA's. Cars are here to stay, and for better or worse... and completely irrespective of either's intended purpose... so are guns. you either have one or you don't, it's your choice. does taking away a criminals driver's license stop him from driving cars? maybe, with some individuals.... but largely, no. it does not.
And speaking of "second chances"... try asking the helpless victims of the Virgina Tech massacre whether, given a "second chance", they'd not choose to banish that gun-free-zone that made them helpless victims. you cannot control a madman
before he goes mad, and you cannot be the thought-police and jail everyone who draws disturbing sketches in class.... but you
can decide on whether or not YOU are going to be a helpless victim.
the system did fail, on the front-end of that tragedy... that kid should never have been able to purchase those guns, based strictly on his having been Baker Acted so recently prior.... but he could have simply waited until he could pass the check eventually.... he was insane, not pissed off. you don't "calm down" from insane. So while i concede the system failed (as all systems do from time to time, no matter how well implemented), it EPIC FAILED in allowing a "Helpless Victim Zone" to exist on that campus.
see, it's all you can do, in a non-totalitarian society where you should NOT
want "big brother" watching your every move.... it's all you can do, given that guns and criminals and insane people, already exist... it's all you can do: be prepared and take responsibility for your own safety and the safety of your loved ones that look to you for protection.
i'm not advocating open gun-fighting in the street man.... i'm a victim's rights advocate... purely and simply: if you shoot at me, or act like you are going to shoot at me and i have no where to run in time to get away and you are in no state to be reasoned with and give no time to even attempt reason... well you're getting shot first, if i can manage it. for that matter, even if you have a knife. or a rock. common-sense, dawn-of-time right to self-preservation, nuts-and-bolts shit here.
some people try to frame this as a black or white issue but it isn't... it's all just shades of gray... and it will never be black or white, not ever. i don't dwell on any of this shit, i just live my life, and i'm a responsible gun owner. If you hung out with me in my home state you'd never even know i had one..... unless one of us was attacked and flight was not an option.
at the risk of redundancy i'll repeat again that this situation exists because criminals do not obey laws... no amount of new gun laws will stop their illegal use. need a qualifying example? liquor in the US during Prohibition. need another? drugs, today. i repeat: criminals do not obey the law, and making something illegal does not make it disappear.
"in each case joe mentioned of suicide and murder, they could have all been accomplished with knife, noose, bare hands, poison, etc... and very likely would have. guns don't make people suicidal."
I know this, but there is a second chance with a lot of those. I knew the person who took their life very well, and I am pretty sure that they would not have done it if it wasn't over so quickly. Even if he had stabbed himself, he could have made it out alive. I know someone that has tried to kill themself several times with poison, each time coming out and regretting it. He was put on anti-depressants and is getting better now. He wouldn't have had a second chance if he had access to a gun.
i'm sorry to hear about your loss... that's truly a drag. i too have had friends and acquaintances commit suicide, none by gun though. i could never have imagined any of them doing it, before hand. your friend should never have had a gun so handy, that's for sure. but, do you seriously propose that the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners who want to protect themselves and their families from criminals ... criminals who will not give up their guns and will keep getting more, no matter what the law says... not have the right to do so?? never mind the other social and even political ramifications of completely disarming the civilian population, because that would be insanity... just let history be your signpost with that... but second chances are few and far between with anything in life, and as tragic as it is, your friend made a choice. the wrong one, to be sure.... but he made it. pretending that different gun laws would have saved him is a cop-out, and i dare anyone to ever tell me that i'm prohibited the option to defend my own life or the lives of my family members in the event of a violent home-invasion, for instance, simply because somewhere in the world someone else i don't know that likely has deep psychological issues may one day shoot themselves with some gun. i'll have none of that noise man.
"cars kill more people than guns every single year in the US... should we take those out of circulation?"
You know as well as I do that thats a stupid point. A car isn't designed to take someones life, and compare the number of cars to the number of firearms carried around, and that figure doesn't hold any ground in an argument.
Looking forward (geniuinly) to your replies, I find this area facinating.
oh you're right... how silly of me.... i should have realized that cars, having not been created to kill people, kill people
less dead than guns do. my bad.
sarcasm aside, your figures are more than a bit off. every adult i know owns a car.... very few people i know own any guns. you've got that one bass ackwards.
