The idiocy of the self defense argument

First of all, being that I do not own a gun, my best self defense is to work to outlaw guns.

Now if someone breaks into your house you will not know whether he has a gun or not, pretty unlikely anyway if they know you are at home. So if you shoot and kill this guy you are pretty much a murderer. How many times does the drunk come home to the wrong house to get his brains blown out? It is very common for people to try to enter the wrong house for a whole myriad of reasons.

Also the guy is coming in and you are then going to go for your safe where you have locked up the guns. Doesn't it make more sense to call the police? Isn't this much faster?

One thing about guns, if you and the attacker have guns, you have to shoot well before the facts are in. And if your attacker has a gun, the dead guy is the unlucky one not the bad guy. In the best of worlds this self defense crap works half the time, the other half you are dead.
And the odds of someone coming at you with a gun when you have gun at the ready are pretty low, especially when your guns are locked up in the safe.

A far better defense would be to outlaw guns to greatly lower the chances of a gun coming in the house.

On Edit: It is established that those that have guns in their houses are much more likely to blow out the brains of someone they know than a stranger.

:popcorn:

The gun nuts are PM'ing each other as we speak! ATTACK! ATTACK!

And as I never received any kind of PM or anything (I noticed this thread near the top of GD) I'm relieved to discover that I'm not a "bona fide" "gun nut".

Mine alerts me within 1/10th of a second anytime a gun thread is posted in GD, GDP, or the Gungeon!

Mine plays "Over There" to alert me!

:-)

that just took a shot at me for giving him the finger?

Or someone grabs you from behind to rape you and you are carrying a weapon. Do you have the right to shoot?

Apparently that happens all the time..

:+ :crazy:

Reading your stuff makes me think that you once had a bad acid trip watching Deathrace 2000.

Now if someone breaks into your house you will not know whether he has a gun or not, pretty unlikely anyway if they know you are at home. So if you shoot and kill this guy you are pretty much a murderer. How many times does the drunk come home to the wrong house to get his brains blown out? It is very common for people to try to enter the wrong house for a whole myriad of reasons.

How many times does a drunk break into a house assuming it's his own? Do you really expect that someone coming through a window, or trying to force a door, is going to be there because he's confused about it being his house? And, even if something as absurd as that happened, assuming that the gun owner is simply going to shoot immediately is a bit of a stretch.

Also the guy is coming in and you are then going to go for your safe where you have locked up the guns. Doesn't it make more sense to call the police? Isn't this much faster?

Must be a pretty hard to open safe, if it is going to take several minutes to open. Do you expect the police to show up within 30 seconds of calling? What neighborhood do you live in?

One thing about guns, if you and the attacker have guns, you have to shoot well before the facts are in. And if your attacker has a gun, the dead guy is the unlucky one not the bad guy. In the best of worlds this self defense crap works half the time, the other half you are dead.

In the situation you prefer, the dead guy is you 100% of the time.

And the odds of someone coming at you with a gun when you have gun at the ready are pretty low, especially when your guns are locked up in the safe.

You just reversed your argument.

A far better defense would be to outlaw guns to greatly lower the chances of a gun coming in the house.

So you don't think there's ever stolen guns from legitimate agencies? Or do you think the police shouldn't be armed too? If they have to have guns to do their jobs, why wouldn't they get stolen?

On Edit: It is established that those that have guns in their houses are much more likely to blow out the brains of someone they know than a stranger.

Established where?

door or through the window?

You're hypothesizing a very unlikely event. A drunk person may try to open a door, or bang on it. I have a hard time believing they'll try to break it down, or break a window. After all, in this situation they think they're at home.

This must be extremely common.

What is he going to do pray tell?

Are you trying to say that the only way a gun is of any use is if people shoot immediately, before they even find out who the person is or why they are there? Things don't happen like that in my world. If they did, I might agree with you. But they don't.

With guns things happen very quickly before the true facts are known.

However, I see that as a reason for education, not out-and-out banning. The same thing can be said about driving, but attempting to ban cars is ridiculous.

Do you have any valid numbers to back that assertion up with?

Secondly, it has always been the case, back to British common law, that if somebody intrudes into your house, that person is assumed to be there for criminal reasons and is open to any means that the homeowner has to defend their home. This includes lethal means as well.

By the time you call the cops, and they get there, it is highly likely that whatever was going to go down has indeed gone down, and you could very well already be dead. Getting a gun out of storage and loading it takes a minute or less, depending on how the gun is stored. Some folks leave a gun outside their safe expressly for defense purposes.

Finally, the self defense argument is but one out of many to own a gun. Hunting, target shooting, sheer fun, collectibles, all these and more are valid reasons to own a gun.

Do we need stiff regulations to regulate guns, sure, and they need to be thoroughly enforced. But banning guns isn't going to solve a damn thing, and will wind up being the worse for our country.

Besides, guns are but a symptom of the problem. Rather than treating the symptom, ie banning guns, we should be addressing the root problems of poverty, stress, mental illness, etc. that leads to people picking up guns. Otherwise these people will continue to take their vengeance out on the world, they will simply use other methods with which to do so, such as home-made bombs, arson, and other methods for mass destruction that we all have access to.

in my life. So it must happen alot.

and on on other occasion tried to unlock the wrong car-shaped pile of snow, but never gone to the wrong house. So I'm going to say it doesn't happen a lot.

US Navy ships are already pretty well-defended so that's not really an issue.

Except possibly that you have problems that I won't go into here. If you're that drunk that you're trying to get into your neighbor's house, then perhaps you should rethink how much you're drinking, because sooner or later it will get you into trouble. If you're simply that confused that you're trying to get into the wrong house, perhaps you should consider pinning a note to your shirt stating where you live for easy, convenient reference.

Now then, do you have any valid, statistical links to back up your assertion, or will you simply continue to base them on your own, admittedly skewed anecdotal evidence?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gunrisks/riskinhome/

This is even more disturbing.

You want to "control" hot dogs?

--IMM

I do fear getting in a traffic accident. I have fear on an airplane also. But why should I have to fear guns?

We should simply outlaw the damn things so we can all have less to fear.

You seem to know where the statistics are. BTW, you have a link for that?

A gun ban may stop some incidents. But the situation is more complex than that.

--IMM

therefore, according to the gun nuts, we should eliminate all driver's license requirements, automobile licensing, speed limits and other traffic regulations because those laws don't work.

--IMM

Who's proposing that existing gun laws should be eliminated?

My beef is with the contention that new bans on responsible ownership of currently-legal guns would be a good idea. I disagree with that, but I'm OK with most existing laws, including the National Firearms Act, most of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the armor-piercing bullet ban of 1986, state requirement of a license in order to carry, etc. etc. etc.

we should ban cars and people leaving their home..

as for leaving home, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

"no, but we should--and do--regulate cars and driving"


There is no speed limit on private property. Cars are not required to be licensed or registered on private property.

Drivers are not required to be licensed on private property.

A person CAN buy an automobile without identification.

That is the running rule, in the great majority of places in this country. Yes, there may be a few exceptions, but the rule IS the rule.

In public, and on publicly funded roads is a different matter.


Guns are FAR more regulated than that, and most states issue PERMITS to carry them in public.

And meaningless phrases like "three times more likely". Hmm, let's see, three times more likely than .01% is what, .03%:shrug:

Sorry, but while I agree about the need for parents to fully secure their guns(and should be held accountable for not doing so), "think of the children" isn't a valid argument for banning guns. More children are killed in cars every year than are killed with guns. Do you want to ban cars then?

Posted by penguin7
"I know that I have tried to enter the wrong house on several occasions in my life. So it must happen alot."

No, it would mean that you're probably either mentally defective or a really stupid drunk... and BTW, just because *you* have done something several times, because of stupidity or drunkeness, doesn't mean *everyone* does it all the time. Illogical thinking at its best...

As for your OP, it's just a load of bullshit being spewed by a gun grabber. It's contains absolutely ZERO verifiable FACTS, just your hyperbolic opinion.

where I was visiting a friend or relative, left and then returned to the wrong house because I did not know the house that well. I cannot believe that this is not fairly common.

and I have never tried to get into the wrong house.

Makes me kind of glad you *don't* carry a gun. Are you really that unaware of your surroundings? If you "didn't know the house that well", you should have taken a moment before you left and familiarized yourself with your surroundings. Pick an object on the house or in the lawn or something, then associate *that* with the house. It's only common sense, especially these days with the 'cookie cutter' subdivisions.

Also, wouldn't your friend or relative have a vehicle in the driveway that you would recognize? Numbers on a mailbox or on the house?

All in all, I'm still calling bullshit.... it's still just hyperbolic opinion, not backed up by facts or logic.

You're fully within your own right to *not* own a firearm, but you have absolutely no right at all to try to tell me what I can own, or how to live. I happen to live in a very rural, remote area of the county, 12 miles from town, in a county with 2 cops on duty at night. It can take 30 minutes to an hour, or longer if they're tied up on another call at the far end of the county, to get an officer out here. Should I offer an intruder a glass of tea and some chicken wings while we wait??

to enter the wrong house. I know I never have, and in the few cases where I've been visiting someone and not been sure I'd returned to the right place, I simply knocked on the door...

I think you'll find that your experience is not common at all.

No one has ever tried to 'come home' to my house and I have never walked into the wrong house.

You're entire post is baseless crap. Do yourself a favor and don't stagger around my neighborhood trying to get into the "wrong house". What are you, 10?

If I just thought wandering into people's homes because I don't know where I am was a common thing to do. Like no one ever came up with the idea of walking into someone's house to do something criminal.....

That's the point at which it's self-defense, when you've actually forced your way into the house. Did you do that?

Sounds like the public has more to fear from you than any responsible gun owner.

If at first you can't get it right. Skydiving is not for you.


If you have difficulty finding your own home then I think that you're right, firearms probably aren't for you. Or power tools, automobiles, most kitchen appliances, etc.

That's a good one!

Think I'll nominate it for a DUzy...

You should start a support group for that.

to put it mildly: idiotic. See the other refutations. Sheesh.

live in an urban area.

I don't see the argument being refuted though.

You haven't dealt with any of the issues raised.

See, what bugs me about the gun ban arguments is that the gun banners can't seem to grasp that we don't all live in New York or LA.

there is justification for owning a gun.

And not a handgun.

What's with that?

Your home, your choice.

Probably half the homes here in eastern NC own guns. That means half don't. That's fine with me.

What I have a problem with is people who don't choose to own guns attempting to foist their choices on me by force.

Your home, your choice. Our home, our choice. What I, and most other lawful gun owners, want is to retain the right to make that choice.

I have a 12 remington semi within easy reach of my wife who is in bed.Have a 20 gauge slug gun.A .308...two .44's...a .243 how mamy guns do I need to qualify as a gun nut?

Oh and a .22 marlin and a .17 savage

Really, what difference does it make?

THAT'S the sense in it.

Many small towns make lots of money off the city folks coming down for deer and turkey season. There are also many urbanites who like to participate in target shooting of some variety. Also, urbanites are more likely to have home invasions than rural folks, and a gun does come in handy on those occasions.

Any other "arguments"?

"How many times does the drunk come home to the wrong house to get his brains blown out?"

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080213_mo_fightingback.bd009f6a.html

By CHRIS HAWES / WFAA-TV

Police said one man is in the hospital after an elderly North Texas man took action into his own hands when confronted by two armed brothers inside his home Saturday night.

Police said they believe the brothers went to 80-year-old James Pickett's home with the intent to rob him, and even possibly kill him. However, Pickett - a World War II veteran, former fighter and lifelong John Wayne devotee - wasn't about to let that happen.

It all began Saturday night when Pickett said he opened his door and two men barged inside.

"He just come through that door stabbing and beating," he said.

However, Pickett said just before he went to answer the door, he had first placed a pistol into his pocket.

"And he jumped and turned, and I shot him there," he said.

The two brothers, Paul and Holden Perry, ran, but didn't get far before calling an ambulance. One of the bullets just missed Paul Perry's spine.

"He's my hero," said one neighbor of Pickett.

"Well, I ain't got no business being a hero, by no means," he said.

Both brothers face assault, burglary and robbery charges. Deputies assured Pickett they aren't likely to get out of jail anytime soon. However, he didn't seem that worried anyhow.

"I think I'm a ten times better shot than he is," he said. "... But, they best not come back."


--

I suppose it would be better were this 80yo man dead or seriously injured right?


"Also the guy is coming in and you are then going to go for your safe where you have locked up the guns. Doesn't it make more sense to call the police? Isn't this much faster?"

No the police can take at least five minutes to get to your home..

--

I dont own a gun because I have two very curious kids, but when they are old enough for me to teach (tweens - teens) Ill probabally buy one... That is if the second amendment haters dont outlaw it first..

If you set the premise, the arguments go your way. I'll allow that if someone is shooting at you, having a gun does not offer much protection. I'll argue the first rule of martial arts: If someone is attacking you, you shouldn't have been there in the first place.

My gun is for the joy of plinking, it was never intended for defense. But calling the police is not the answer whaen danger is imminent. No miscreant is going to wait for the police to arrive.

I believe that in a free country, no one has the power to tell me that I can't have a gun.

--IMM

a policeman once told me "It's better to be tried by a jury of 12 than be carried to your grave by 6."

they're not innocent.

Innocent people don't break into others' homes.

I don't think statistics like that are valid if they're being used in defense of getting rid of guns. Certainly there is an issue with our country that makes our level of gun violence so prevalent. But I think "Bowling for Columbine" does a pretty damn good job of suggesting that it's not the mere availability of guns that puts our incidence of gun murders in the U.S. at 60x that of Canada's. I don't own a gun, and probably won't, but I still can't get worked up on trying to outlaw guns, or simply outlaw more types of guns because I don't think that's the best way of reducing gun violence in this country

I think you're dreaming.

Tim McVeigh proved how easy it is to kill a whole bunch of people. Why make the assumption that there would be a complete change in violent crime simply because one of the tools was taken away?

Where are your stats showing the number of people killed in African countries with machetes vs the United States?? Are you in favor of banning machetes?

Where are the stats showing the number of people stoned to death in Islamic countries?? Are you in favor of banning stones?

I guess the people murdered by "other" just don't count.



Only 20% of UK homicides are from guns. I guess that's a good thing, except that their homicide rate it up about 30% since they started disarming the population back in 1989 or so.

Because that would blow your statistic out of the water.

Save some percentage of those 11,344 murders so we can victimize between 500,000 and 1.5 million people instead.

GREAT plan!

You wrote:
Now if someone breaks into your house you will not know whether he has a gun or not, pretty unlikely anyway if they know you are at home. So if you shoot and kill this guy you are pretty much a murderer.

If someone is breaking into your house and knows you're there, they have already thought about how they are going to disable and control you (likely with a gun). In my state shooting the individual who poses any kind of threat to you in your home after illegally entering would not be murder.

You wrote:
How many times does the drunk come home to the wrong house to get his brains blown out? It is very common for people to try to enter the wrong house for a whole myriad of reasons.

I hardly ever hear of a drunk getting killed for entering the wrong house. Most people wouldn't shoot the mistaken drunk, but if he or she was violent after entering I can see home owners being justified in using lethal force. Its really too bad, but being stupid, drunk, and violent generally hurts.

You wrote:
Also the guy is coming in and you are then going to go for your safe where you have locked up the guns. Doesn't it make more sense to call the police? Isn't this much faster?

This sentence tells me you have never opened a safe or called the police because it is much faster to open a safe than have police arrive via 911.

You wrote:
One thing about guns, if you and the attacker have guns, you have to shoot well before the facts are in. And if your attacker has a gun, the dead guy is the unlucky one not the bad guy. In the best of worlds this self defense crap works half the time, the other half you are dead.
And the odds of someone coming at you with a gun when you have gun at the ready are pretty low, especially when your guns are locked up in the safe.

its true that its tough to get to your gun when its not on your person and youre ambushed, but all I can do is give myself a fighting chance

You wrote:
A far better defense would be to outlaw guns to greatly lower the chances of a gun coming in the house.

Well banning all guns completely might reduce the chances of a home invader having one, might, but it does nothing to stop the invader from using a different weapon where hand-to-hand combat would be necessary to save your life or loved ones. I find that unacceptable.

I stopped reading there.

This blind gun hatred that some in this party still have is nauseating, and I don't think they realize how many voters this turns off.

He thinks it's no big deal.

See how the blue line (UK homicide rate) dipped sharply after the British confiscted assault weapons in 1989, and again after they confiscated handguns in 1998? Both times it was after a mass shooting clearly proved that Britons could not be trusted to have guns for their individual defense.

It's a good chart, but I think it would be clearer if you either got rid og the gray background, or increased the thickness of the lines, or both. It would stand out more that way.

Let me see what Excel will let me do. It's an older version.

:applause:

:grins proudly:

In the vast majority of defensive gun uses, the criminal(s) run when they hear or see the armed homeowner. Not a shot is fired.

By your logic, police shouldn't carry guns either! They are virtually impotent because they manage to kill less than 400 people a year. We should save the expense of spending $600 per cop to buy them a gun and hundred of dollars a year in ammunition and training and use the money to hire more cops instead. Right?

penguin, I somewhat doubt that you're interesting in learning any of the legitimate arguments for gun possession, but if you are, read some of the stories on The Civilian Self Defense Blog:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

It has been pointed out that Clayton Cramer is not an unbiased source of information, but he does link to real news stories for each event.

Read a few and see if you can at least understand the counters to some of the points you raise.
-----
"WWII vet sends armed burglar suspect to hospital

Police said one man is in the hospital after an elderly North Texas man took action into his own hands when confronted by two armed brothers inside his home Saturday night.

Police said they believe the brothers went to 80-year-old James Pickett's home with the intent to rob him, and even possibly kill him. However, Pickett - a World War II veteran, former fighter and lifelong John Wayne devotee - wasn't about to let that happen.

It all began Saturday night when Pickett said he opened his door and two men barged inside.

"He just come through that door stabbing and beating," he said."
-----
"Teen robber shot by intended victim

A teenager robber was shot and killed in Watts Saturday morning.

According to a police spokesperson, 17-year-old Joe Beck was hiding behind a pole in the 1200 block of East 140th Street, waiting to hold-up his intended victim.

Moments after approaching the victim, who was in his vehicle, Beck produced a gun and demanded money.

The victim--also armed--produced a weapon and shot the suspect in the chest. Beck later died at an area hospital."
-----


There's one example of a homeowner defending himself, and one example of a person facing an armed assailant. I think those were two of your arguments, so, at least anecdotally, your scenarios are not absolute.

There was 7 serial shooting in the last two weeks.

Every day dozens are killed by guns, and many more are horribly injured. So what if cars kill and injure more? Why add to our risk of senseless injury?

Every day, on average, 44 people are murdered in the US.

30 are with guns, 14 are without guns.

If tomorrow, all guns turned into piles of rust and no new ones could be sold to the general public, how many people a day would be killed for the rest of the year?

Most times the criminals flees without shots being fired by either sides.

It is estimated that about 1.2 million defensive gun uses a year occur in the US.

This results in about 200 justifiable homicides.

This means that for every justifiable homicide, there are six thousand criminals who leave promptly and unceremoniously.

www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.guns05feb05,0,6729824.story

baltimoresun.com
A gun in the house
February 5, 2008

timore County police say Nicholas W. Browning used his father's handgun to kill his family on Friday night. While such familicide is hardly common, numerous studies have shown that having a gun in the home can be exceedingly dangerous. In fact, a firearm is far more likely to be used to shoot a family member or acquaintance than to defend the home against an intruder.

That's because the presence of a gun in the home raises the risk of not only homicide but suicide and accidental death as well. One Johns Hopkins study found, for instance, that about one-third of all deadly shootings occur during a family argument. The same study found that nearly 75 percent of suicide victims lived in a home where at least one gun was present.

Yet the National Rifle Association would have the public believe that guns make us safer. Period. Certainly, there are people for whom that is true - and there are devices such as gun safes that can reduce the risks associated with gun ownership.

But the combination of families and deadly weaponry is still too often a devastating mix.

We do not advocate the banning of all guns, but there are measures government can take to reduce their risk. Maryland has a law requiring adults to store guns in a place that is inaccessible to children. Perhaps that rather open-ended and rarely enforced requirement needs to be strengthened.

Such legislation wouldn't necessarily have spared the Brownings, of course. And with roughly 200 million firearms in circulation in this country, it's certainly no cure-all for gun violence. But at minimum, families need to become better educated about the grim reality of bringing a gun into the home. The consequences of that decision are simply too lethal to be ignored.



Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

A story from my past..

My wife and I were in the process of moving from Ohio to Florida. Our first stop in Florida was at my mom and step dad's house. We planned to stay there temporarily until I found a job and place to live.

We arrived in the afternoon and unloaded some stuff in his garage. In the process of settling in, my wife's house cat Snowflake, decided to explore the neighborhood and disappeared. My wife was extremely upset as that cat was like a child to her.

That night at one or two o'clock she woke me up saying she heard the cat outside. We both went outside the house without waking up my parents, found the cat, and put him back inside. She sat outside on the porch with me and we talked for a few minutes while I enjoyed a cigarette.

Meanwhile, my step dad woke up and heard us outside. He had had some fishing equipment stolen from his truck the week before, so he suspected prowlers. He grabbed his .22 magnum revolver and headed for the door. On the way he glanced at the bedroom my wife and I had been sleeping in. Seeing no light on in the room, he assumed we were asleep.

He reached to door just as I was opening it. He cocked the revolver, pointed it at my stomach and said "Freeze".

I raised my hands and calmly said, "It's only me dad". The situation ended...fortunately without any loud noises.

I remember visiting my parents house a couple of months after we had moved out. I asked my mom to show me the gun my step dad had pointed at me. When she did, I told her, "That can't be the same gun. It was much bigger!" A gun that's pointed at you always looks enormous.

******

So, the bottom line is that when you hear noises in the night, you have to be real careful before you start pulling the trigger. You definitely don't want to shoot an innocent person.

Yes, this does put you at a disadvantage. If a bad guy is in your house, he knows who he is and who you are and he knows why he is in your house. Unless he's totally incompetent at his profession, he also knows the house is occupied. If he hears you coming, he might find cover and open fire when you walk into the room he's in.

Many self defense experts say that the best plan is to stay in your bedroom. Call 911 on your cell hone (your telephone lines might have been cut). Get your weapon and hide behind cover waiting for him to make entry into your bedroom. Now you have the advantage. You have enough time to determine who he is, you're a difficult target to hit and you have him in your sights.

Of course, you probably will feel foolish hiding behind your bed for fifteen minutes just because the dog tipped over the garbage can.

You just have to remember that when you decide to play cops and robbers and start doing a room to room search, you're taking a hell of a chance.

my personal freedom and I despise people who want to limit my freedom. The right to own a gun is a very liberal idea!

Is a very liberal idea. And if you think the NRA is liberal, you having bigger problems.

stop mass shootings? How many guns are already out here? and how are you going to take then away from their owners?

Republicans = Corporate Freedom and Individual Responsibility
Democrats = Individual Freedom and Corporate Responsibility

Gun ownership has never been a "liberal idea". You just pulled that one out of your butt. As to how many guns are already out there, you have a point. We need stricter regulations on who can purchase a gun, we have to close the gunshow loophole (that you'll say doesn't exist), we have to have longer waiting periods to buy a gun and we have to legislate that all guns come with a trigger lock so that the gun can only be shot by the person who owns it.

You're right; it's a huge problem and a huge challenge with all the guns out there already. But it can be done with time and effort. And with gun lobbies out of the politicians' pockets, it can be done. Now THAT'S A LIBERAL IDEA.

is a very liberal idea, and don't you ever forget it! There's no way in hell you or your anti gun pals will ever get the guns out of the owner possession!

Taking away personal freedoms is not LIBERAL!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

during the Vietnam War to protect my freedoms and the constitution. I'll fight today anybody who wants to destroy my freedom!

Thank you for your service to our country and your continuing dedication to freedom.

I can't believe we actually have to defend our American rights against our own fellow citizens. I wonder if these are the same Democrats who are enabling the Bush administration's dismantling of the Constitution because it's "for a good cause."

will NEVER happen. Our party does not support it.

You can write your representatives and ask them to ammend the constitution to fit your views.

Good luck.

Add a line about requiring every american to recieve a Porsche 911 GT2 as part of their yearly tax return.

"Liberal" in most cases can be defined as favoring the rights of the individual over the rights of the government. That certainly includes gun ownership by citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism

... that's why the LIBERAL Founding Fathers wanted to have the right to keep and bear arms. It's in the Constitution.

King George didn't want his people to have guns... and the monarchy wasn't liberal.

You need to re-consider Bcalm's point Zanne.

Guns don't help communities.

Communitarianism has boundaries that encroach on left-wing libertarianism, which is really what the Bill of Rights codifies.

Hate speech is also bad for communities, and, indeed, many communities that have the option of banning it (such as private universities) have done so. Hate speech is, however, protected by the First Amendment, in the same way that gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment.

As far as communities go, gun violence is usually a symptom of other problems — problems that can, and should, be addressed.

This isn't all theory, ya know.

I'm a religious pacifist. You'll never convince me guns are good in any way.

I said that owning guns was a Constitutional right.

It's an important one, too. It establishes that the government (and its army) does not have a monopoly on violence. Soldiers can carry arms because citizens can carry arms. That's not saying that citizens must or even should carry arms, but it's important that they have the right to do so.

Also, since my wife cannot eat beef, its nice to be able to go shoot something for dinner that isn't chicken or pork. Have you ever tried to strangle a deer? It's really, really, hard.

Ever tried to live without causing suffering? It's really, really hard.


Which is why people would rather own guns and kill things.

Certainly not Christianity. Jesus wasn't a vegetarian. You're certainly not going to find a case for vegetarianism in the Torah, where people spend half the things burning animals for purely ceremonial purposes.

I am not beneath you, Reverend. Pissing contests over who is more holy certainly are.

http://www.all-creatures.org/cva/

But don't pretend that vegetarianism is compelled by Christianity. In particular, this argument...

...is the level of blinkered, pig-ignorant Bible commentary I expect to find on the "Answers in Genesis" site. What part of "I give you this to eat," don't the authors of this tripe understand? Is God passive aggressive now? The world described by the prophets is post-messianic. In Olam HaZah, things are different. For something that God didn't really want us to do (eat meat), he sure went to the trouble of making a lot of rules about it (e.g laws of Kashrut).

in California, and ask yourself, "Is this pleasing to God?". Seems pretty clear to me.

Jesus taught me to be kind. Period.

"downer cows"?

Jesus taught me to love my fellow humans. I learned how to be condescending on my own, however. How about you?

Hunting isn't about cruelty, it's about being what God made us. I've gone on several hunting trips with Native Americans I met through the Four Winds Diocese and for them, participating in the natural world of predator and prey was a spiritual experience. I find your posture to be ethnocentric — bordering on offensive.

It's also interesting that your CVA site calls out the raising of cattle as a "leading cause" of environmental problems. It conveniently ignores that another leading cause it the cultivation of grain. In fact, the cultivation of grain has been a top-ranked cause of environmental damage for over 4000 years. If you want to go on about the dangers of factory farming, then I'm with you on that.

Your meat production wastes way more grain than goes into my diet. I eat grain as grain, not wastefully processed through a cow. If you're looking for a way to cut down on grain processing, stop eating meat.

They're more likely to be raised in factory farms, though, which do damage to the environment, rural communities, workers and animals.

Hunting, mycritters2. This thread was about guns and hunting.

And please don't argue that you're keeping their numbers down. Their numbers are up because hunters killed off their predators. Hunting helps no one.

not everything is necessary. You could live on soylent green...

It helps me..

We do not live based only on what we need.

The only people who claim to like venison are those trying to argue in favor of hunting. All sane people know it tastes like crap.

like any meat it must cure. You dont eat cow that has been thrown in a truck and served the next day.

I have had venison prepped properly at restaurants in France and made proper venison here.

... at the very least, when you pull out venison to cook, you need to let it "sit" for a bit before cooking it. It also helps if you "kasher" it, or prepare it according to Kashrut - but you have to do that during and after the kill, which can be a total pain for most, but it gives the best (to me) taste. Kashruting it also removes any chance of getting BSE also, which is a growing problem for people who have their venison processed commercially by individuals who don't practise proper handling of the CNS materials.

Also, as with much meats, you cannot overcook venison, bison, or elk. Americans have the propensity to overcook all meats, which makes them taste like ass at best and an old shoe at worst.

Good venison, like any good lean meat, is wonderful and tasty. If it is too "gamey", you likely have bad meat.

I like venison. I also like dark beer. I like whiskey. I like haggis.

All of these things taste like crap. What's your point? Are you insinuating that the Scotts are all insane? I mean, we are, but who are yew ta be sayin' it, laddie?

I'm funny that way.

and nothing will remove it. My granddad always told me that if I couldn't put the slug through the heart of the animal then don't shoot it. If the heart is not destroyed it will pump adrenalin into the meat as the animal runs. Adrenalin is what dogs smell if you are frightened and has a bitter taste.

A friend of mine hunts on my property all the time. Because of state law most deer are taken with a bow (which I personally find distasteful.) He has taken several over the years that we spent hours tracking and the meat was only fit for dog food. This year he finally got the arrow to go behind the shoulder and through the top of the lungs and heart. The creature didn't make it 40 yards before going down and the meat was really quite good.

Regards, Mugu

when my wife cooks it. I'm sorry, but there is no nasty aftertaste either. You're just making stuff up. Have you even tried eating venison?

You have to know how to cook it. It's MUCH leaner than beef, hence much easier to turn to dry tasteless leather if you don't adjust your cooking techniques accordingly. Properly prepared and cooked, it's excellent.

And BTW, I don't hunt and have no plans to, but there is plenty of venison to be had around here from those who do.

You want to kvetch about shooting wolves, I'll join you.

Hunting is not cruel. If it is unnecessary, it is unnecessary thanks to our industrialized society. Again, your attitude toward hunting is unique to those privileged to live in a wealthy industrial society.

But your posts have been consistently insulting. After being affronted with the largest accumulation of junk science and junk religion I've ever seen, I strain to be civil. Obviously, this is more effort than can be expected from someone who Jesus taught to be kind. Period.

I've disagreed with you, but this is not the same as an insult.

...

Find me one valid biological opinion on hunting not being necessary as a wildlife management technique. Not propaganda put out by animal liberation people - a valid biological opinion.

the ecology by HUNTING the predator species. Don't pretend it's natural to have to take care of a problem humans created in the first place.

WE may have made it necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary!

For quite a few years I didn't need to deal with the local coyote population because of heart worms. But the deer got to be a problem because of eating and scraping fruit and shade trees, eating flower bulbs, destroying crops and gardens, causing numerous vehicular accidents endangering motorist, and just being a general pain in the ass. The deer got so brave that they didn't even run when my dogs (small then, but no more) barked at them. The deer just snorted at them and went on about their business.

For whatever reason the coyotes have made a comeback and now they are the problem. I like having a few barn cats and my neighbors have reported coyotes ganging up on their dogs and are frightened for their children. They get so brazen that they don't even bother to run when you confront them. So every so often, as distasteful as I find it, I get up early in the morning for several days and kill a few.

A load of 1.25oz. of #4 buckshot is quick and sure and I have no further problem for at least a year. When you start complaining about people trapping mice or rats get back to me. Even then your complains will fall on deaf ears.

Regards, Mugu

And yeah, they ARE brazen. We have lost 3 dogs to them.

Every night just after dark they come by to see if there are any cats or small dogs they can eat.

Ergo, hunting.

Ergo, a balanced ecology.

You think you can just drop a bunch of wolves into the woods, dust off your hands, and say job well done? It will take years to get the cycle down. In the meantime, the animals still need a predator.

By the way, are you going to seed the cities with wolves too? Urban deer populations are the fastest growing portion of deer populations.

That's not liberalism, that's nanny-statism. You don't have a right to ensure that you are not affected by other people.

The NRA isn't liberal, true, but what does that have to do with this? The NRA is a separate entity from gun ownership. Although they may advocate owning guns, belonging to the organization, or even listening to the crap they spew, isn't a prerequisite for gun ownership, and they have nothing to do with the discussion here.

Gee, where have you been?

I don't want to die the way the Harvey Family did, held hostage and hogtied, forced to watch their loved ones get murdered, after trying to appease their invaders in hopes they would take what they want and leave.

I don't want to see one of my family members die of a stupid accidental shooting, a suicide by gun, or murder by a drunk and enraged family member.

last big ones were drownings..Ban the tub..!

I find it amazing how you malign gun owners wholesale while your own family has a high powered rifle and apparently exempt from your own stinging criticism.

Since you fear YOUR family more then some scumbag criminal - might be time to rethink who you hang out with - is it too late for a divorce or whatever?

And please, if your family members are inclined to suicide find out why and get them help - 15,600 people will commit suicide without any gun at all. Don't put it off! And don't dismiss that alcoholic family member either - they may drink and drive and kill someone else too.

...but why do you have to drag the whole country into your concerns about your family killing each other?

If your alcoholic relative hauls off and shoots a family member, it's not going to be because of anything I did, including exercising my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

is preferrable to what may have happened had there been a firearm in the house that one of the residents may have been able to obtain and use during the attack? If so, please explain. If not, please explain the relevance of your response.

I have no kids so I have a sidearm condition 1 at arms reach.

I never shot anyone. No one ever shot me, and I have been around lots of angry people with weapons. The to being dead I encountered came from a improperly secured earthmover. The person who loaded it came as close to killing me as possible. If he had, by my logic, he would be a murdered. There are no accidents in cars or with thing like that. There is negligence and death.

I have had opportunity to be in a confrontation. I caught a person climbing into my window, after they punched the lock..

I shined a flashlight in his face while aiming a sidearm at this chest. He probably did not see that weapon.

He did follow my instructions. They were to open his hands and leave. This was in an apartment and there was no reason for me to push a conflict by detaining him. The law would have allowed me to shoot him. That would be legal, but IMHO unethical.

A weapon gives you the ability to control a confrontation. Just like your car or loading a D6, you choose how to conduct yourself.

"How many times does the drunk come home to the wrong house to get his brains blown out?"

I'd say this would happen once, after which there is very little likelihood of a repeat.

And inhuman. Shame on you.

I find the concept of taking away a Constitutional right on the basis of protecting people who are too drunk to find their own home to be absurd.

If said drunk person had driven to my home, I'd shoot them on principle.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What a humanitarian.

I lost four in one accident and two in another. And I'm itching to shoot drunk drivers dead.

So sue me.

And I'm sorry that it has made you so bitter.

They're going to commit suicide.

But you're not in a locker room.

They have WiFi everywhere these days, zanne.

After all, I'm in a church.

but I made up my mind a long time ago about home invaders. If you come in my home uninvited you have only yourself to blame for what happens.

Regards, Mugu

And how many drunks have broken into a home by mistake and been shot?

If smoeone breaks into my home while I'm there it's all over....I pay the taxes, I have a job, stay away bums find someone else to rob or get a job.

Shrinking the disparity of wealth in this country and providing better access to mental health treatment are both things that would lower the amount of gun violence far more effectively that trying in vain to ban guns, in my opinion. And just to avoid confusion, I am not in a locker room.

Along with stricter gun control laws.

because the party that tried to ban even a small fraction of the guns owned by 80 million voters would quickly be out on its ass, and hand the trifecta to the other party.

In 1994, merely raising prices on replacement magazines for civilian handguns, and requiring minor cosmetic and name changes to some popular civilian rifles, cost at least 20 House seats, unseated the House Speaker for the first time since the Civil War, turned the Senate red, and monkeywrenched real progressive social policies for a decade and a half. All for a law that banned no guns whatsoever. Care to speculate the political ramifications of an actual confiscatory ban, enforced at gunpoint?

while students are shot to death in Geography 104: Intro to Ocean Science.

What a wonderful country.

It is very nice to know Congress now are more inclined to keep their oath to support it.

but that people support by arguing against regulation? I've read it.

And I still don't think every macho asshole who walks down the street should be allowed to carry a gun. I'm funny that way.

"for a free State" in there too - all right before it says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed". Primary reason of course so we can best do our duty with the most effective arms in that well armed and well trained Militia. AND of course have the effective means to self-defense.

Of course that is only one of the places the right is secured - don't forget the 9th, the 10th, the original militia clauses, and the fact that Congress has no power to regulate arms.


It's OK that you think that way, it's the great thing about choice and freedom and unalienble rights! You can now choose not to be armed (since militia duty is no longer mandatory), while I can!

because people like you have made it so easy for them to get guns. I'm sure the founders are proud.

basic rights because of fear, govt being able to out-gun the citizenry, and improper (weak) responses to criminals AND would-be tyrants.


The lack of self-responsibility would floor them.

Or MLK's. Responding to violence with violence only continues the violence.

That's all for now. I've got to cleanse my mental palate with some Girard.

Remember that the Bill of Rights was written by people who had lived under an imperial army. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that in the new country, the military would not be a Samurai class with special permission to own weapons. Since is it necessary for "a well-regulated militia" to exist for national defense, then it is necessary that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that soldiers can bear arms, not because they have special authority, but because they are citizens like everyone else.

That is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and I can't believe anyone would argue against this (unless you take a radical pacifist stance that denies the necessity of a defense force).

Yes, I'm a pacifist. I meant to mention that. I've often considered becoming Mennonite, and used to work for the Mennonites. For now, I work for a stronger peace witness in my own denomination.

My Mennonite friends like to point out that the only reason they're considered unrealistic is that everyone isn't Pacifist. Yet.

I follow the Just War Doctrine which found its genesis in the works of Augustine. Augustine spent his life transforming Christianity from a fan club into an organized movement; I have my problems with Augustine, but without him, we wouldn't be discussing the finer points of Jesus' Word today. A greater contribution was made by Thomas Aquinas, who deserves a great deal of the credit for the fact that the Christian Church emerged from the Dark Ages with any semblance of moral authority.

From these works, I see that there is no reason not to allow for defensive war. If all wars are defensive, then there will be no wars.

If this isn't pious enough for you, well, that's that.

Nor is it biblical.

And I read enough Aquinas in seminary to not be very impressed with his work. He did give us the Protestant Reformation, though, which was mainly a rejection of his notion that sin and grace carry quantifiable values. Another idea not found in scripture.

Ooooookaaaay. (Backs away slowly, not making eye contact.)
:yoiks:

extrabiblical doctrines, and the church's wholesale acceptance of them. Without Aquinas, Luther would've been a quiet parish priest no one ever heard of.

:eyes:

Aquinas is another.

I believe that Christians should have a relationship with a Living God — not a book.

read the book of Romans. Pretty much the whole book. For justification by faith: Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:24. Actually, in at least two of these, the Greek does translate to Latin "sola fides".

I'm not a Protestant. You also have an awful lot of nerve lecturing me on Scripture after some of the knee-slappers on that CVA site (and I'm being charitable here, the proper term is "blasphemy").

Do you subject your congregation to the same kind of smug condescension that you've shown me in this discussion topic? I have to say that I'm a little taken aback that someone who considers themselves a liberal Christian is so militantly intolerant of well-supported differing viewpoints.

And, BTW, I've read Romans. In Koine, Mr. "I went to Seminary".

:rofl:

I think we're done. I didn't even realize anyone was still accusing people of blasphemy in this day and age.

Have a good evening.

I didn't realize how much it was going to piss you off.

Also, I fully expect to be ridiculed for using the word "blasphemy" on DU — just not by clergy.

Oh yeah, well, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.


Btw, if I don't continue with this, it's because the beagle has dog class, not because I'm pissed. I don't piss off that easily.

This has gone waaaaay off topic anyway.

I'd say we should take it to R/T, except that it's not socially acceptable to discuss either religion or theology in that forum.

Have a good evening!! :hi:

"Well regulated" my ass.

Have a looksie at this:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

www.billofrights.org


Thats the preamble to the bill of rights. It spells out the purpose intent and function OF the bill of rights. That being a restriction on governmental power.

In the case of the second amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" by the government - without - like all other rights, DUE PROCESS.

One does not place restrictions on the rights of the people, in a document that enumerates the restrictions and limits on POWER of the government.



" I've read it."

You have not read it in the same light as what the preamble to the bill of rights claims it is, and I'll wager you'll attempt to find every reason possible not to.


"And I still don't think every macho asshole who walks down the street should be allowed to carry a gun. I'm funny that way."


Now you are injecting open/concealed carry into the debate as well.

We've had anti-murder laws for at least 6000 years and people STILL murder one another. Therefore, according to the unasailable logic of the gun nuts, we should immediately eliminate all laws prohibiting murder. "Anti-murder laws don't work." "If we outlaw murder, only outlaws will murder."

With guns, something like 70% the population thinks that responsible gun ownership is OK, and 35-40% of the population actually own them.

A better analogy would be alcohol prohibition. You can't outlaw something that half the nation thinks is their birthright; you'll only nullify what controls you already have via market regulations by driving the legitimate market underground, thereby making it worse (a la Prohibition) and not reducing possession/use at all.

the *logic*, not the article, is at issue.

One recurring gun nut argument is that "laws won't work, because criminals will just break the law." By that logic, any law that is broken is an unnecessary law because criminals will still break it.

No one is talking about getting rid of murder laws. However, people are talking about getting rid of gun ownership. A valid comparison would be getting rid of an individual's ability to murder someone, which is completely absurd.

I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm simply showing yours doesn't hold up.

You didn't understand me. I'm talking about the logic, not the objects.

You see, I didn't say "guns = cars," because those are not the same objects. I can't shoot my neighbor with my car.

But, one common argument of the gun nuts is that because gun regulation doesn't work perfectly ("criminals have guns") we should not regulate guns.

The *logic* of this argument would be IDENTICAL to saying that because automobile regulation doesn't work perfectly ("people die in traffic accidents") we should not regulate automobiles.

Patently absurd, to use your Gingrichian word. If we could devise a new automobile regulation that would arguably save lives, we should do it. If we can devise a new gun regulation that would arguably save lives, we should do it.

I question the efforts of anyone trying to get rid of all gun laws. I know there are probably a few people, but from what I have seen they are confined to a fringe. Anyone arguing complete and free access to any weapon invented by mankind is not in the mainstream, that's for certain. so my point is that the real argument isn't all-or-none on gun laws, but instead is enforcing the laws we have now vs. a draconian banning of all guns. I agree with your logic in the above example (it is absurd), but I still make the claim that taking away all guns to keep people safe, as an argument, is logically the same as taking away everyone's ability to hurt anyone, which in practice is impossible and would be restricting to the point of enslavement.

IMHO we need stronger laws. The current ones are insufficient.