Gun laws do they work

[Dick7Access]

Perhaps someone can answer this, an American preferably.

Throughout this and the other gun shooting thread Americans seem overly and extremely paranoid about an intruder in their home - hence the gun need.

I hardly give a thought to an intruder, our back door is always unlocked when we are home, except at night. In summer heat, all doors are open all day.

Is there a high possibility of being disturbed by an intruder at home in America?

I know asking Americans questions on this forum is pointless, but I thought I'd try.

Col

Would it be ok for someone to not be paranoid about an intruder, leave their doors unlocked day and night, but still not want to give up their constitution right to have a gun?

 

[Rabbie]

I am disappointed that I have not received any direct answer to the the question I posted in good faith.

This leads me to the conclusion that having a gun is not in response to a real threat but rather an emotional response.

An old school friend of mine who is now a New York lawyer has told me he has no need to have a gun. After all if you keep your gun in a safe place which you ought to do if you are responsible then you are not going to be able to use it if you have an intruder at 3:00 am. Better then to have a baseball bat beside your bed.

I don't think this recent tragedy would have been prevented by tighter gun laws. You can't legislate against every loony inthe country. But better gun control might prevent some of the tragic accidents that occur because there are hand guns in the home

 

[Jacob Mathai]

The average life expectancy is around 79 years in America. People still buy life insurance (in case they die early). Same with gun possession. There may not be a real threat, but be prepared.
If an intruder is shot inside a house, usually police will not charge the home owner. The law may be different in other countries.
Gun possession is a complex issue. No single answer will satisfy every question.

 

[RainLover]

How long would it take for One Million 1,000,000 people to be killed in America because of guns.

Would any American know the answer.

 

[Dick7Access]

The average life expectancy is around 79 years in America. People still buy life insurance (in case they die early). Same with gun possession. There may not be a real threat, but be prepared.
If an intruder is shot inside a house, usually police will not charge the home owner. The law may be different in other countries.
Gun possession is a complex issue. No single answer will satisfy every question.

well said!

 

[rodmc]

I dont think anyone is saying that guns should be banned out right in the US but the type of guns an individual can own should be an issue IMV.

I asked this question earlier, why does a civilian need military grade weapons ie assault rifles?

Lets take the "intruder" reasoning, will a handgun serve the same purpose, absolutely. An assault rifle in this scenario is actually pretty stupid and dangerous, they are not meant for what the military term as CQB, so why have one? Having a weapon of this type is for what exactly?

 

[rodmc]

I am disappointed that I have not received any direct answer to the the question I posted in good faith.

This leads me to the conclusion that having a gun is not in response to a real threat but rather an emotional response.

An old school friend of mine who is now a New York lawyer has told me he has no need to have a gun. After all if you keep your gun in a safe place which you ought to do if you are responsible then you are not going to be able to use it if you have an intruder at 3:00 am. Better then to have a baseball bat beside your bed.

I don't think this recent tragedy would have been prevented by tighter gun laws. You can't legislate against every loony inthe country. But better gun control might prevent some of the tragic accidents that occur because there are hand guns in the home

nail on head

 

[Steve R.]

Hannity, a commentator on FOX News, observed that the Obama administration pushed "Fast and Furious", which gave guns to criminals. Now in response to the Newtown massacre the Obama administration is using that very tragic incident to hypocritically promote gun control legislation. So the Obama administration, on one hand, promotes the "“the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country.” that he decries, but when politically opportune suddenly wants populist legislation to prevent the "“the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country.”

 

[Fifty2One]

I have firearms to protect myself and my family, not my possessions. Material possessions are insured and can be replaced, however, if there is someone on my property who is a threat to the welfare of myself or my family, then they can expect to be met with resonable force. It would not be a surprise to them because it is well placarded on our property.
I have leveled my arm on a person on more then one occasion if that counts as "have had to use their gun..." in your question. Unlike a majority of the population in Canada and USA, I am properly trained in the use of firearms and maintain a high level of training at a proper firing range.

I have a question for those in this thread who are in favour of having a gun for self defence.

Have they ever been in a situation when they have had to use their gun to protect themselves, their family or their possessions? It will be interesting to see what people say.

I think there is a difference between having guns that you would use against other people and guns that you would use for sporting/hunting purposes.

 

[Libre]

It's obvious to me that people who have guns in the home or carry them "for protection" are making a specious argument if they fail to protect themselves against far more ordinary - yet still lethal - threats such as:
High blood pressure;
House fires;
Smoking related diseases;
Traffic accidents (don't wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, for example);
Etc.
Do they really imagine the threat of home invasion or anarchy in the streets is that great, but common threats that really happen every day can be ignored?
Or do they just want their guns?
It's the old trick we all play - that of believing and doing what we want, and finding justification for what we do, if necessary.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

It's obvious to me that people who have guns in the home or carry them "for protection" are making a specious argument if they fail to protect themselves against far more ordinary - yet still lethal - threats such as:
High blood pressure;
House fires;
Smoking related diseases;
Traffic accidents (don't wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets, for example);
Etc.
Do they really imagine the threat of home invasion or anarchy in the streets is that great, but common threats that really happen every day can be ignored?
Or do they just want their guns?
It's the old trick we all play - that of believing and doing what we want, and finding justification for what we do, if necessary.

Can you believe that if all guns are removed from gun owners, there will be more gun related deaths in America? Why? You cannot remove guns from the bad people. They do not obey the law. Guns will be available in the black market.
When it comes to one's life, statistics does not matter. You do not cross the river knowing the average depth of the river.
The policemen say this, "It is better to be tried by twelve (jury) than be carried by six (pall bearers)". Many Americans think that way.
Gun owners, please take responsibility for your guns. If someone in the house is not mature enough to handle guns, remove the guns or secure them. Just play it safe.

 

[ClassicPhil]

Can you believe that if all guns are removed from gun owners, there will be more gun related deaths in America? Why? You cannot remove guns from the bad people. They do not obey the law. Guns will be available in the black market.
When it comes to one's life, statistics does not matter. You do not cross the river knowing the average depth of the river.
The policemen say this, "It is better to be tried by twelve (jury) than be carried by six (pall bearers)". Many Americans think that way.
Gun owners, please take responsibility for your guns. If someone in the house is not mature enough to handle guns, remove the guns or secure them. Just play it safe.

You hit the nail on the head my friend...I agree 100%.

 

[Dick7Access]

I dont think anyone is saying that guns should be banned out right in the US

Oh but they do. In fact most but not all anti-gun advocates is exactly what there goal is. They just don't publish it boldly. Some do. In fact even here on this thread, read between the lines. Post such as "it's a start" I am not as far right on this issue as some of my friends, as I am for some kinds of testing, but I even wonder myself how do we go about any meaningful testing. With all the testing I wonder how we can keep guns, cars, knives, matches, dynamite etc. out of the hands of lunatics.

 

[Dick7Access]

How long would it take for One Million 1,000,000 people to be killed in America because of guns.

Would any American know the answer.

Does it matter?

 

[Dick7Access]

I dont think anyone is saying that guns should be banned out right in the US but the type of guns an individual can own should be an issue IMV.

I asked this question earlier, why does a civilian need military grade weapons ie assault rifles?

Lets take the "intruder" reasoning, will a handgun serve the same purpose, absolutely. An assault rifle in this scenario is actually pretty stupid and dangerous, they are not meant for what the military term as CQB, so why have one? Having a weapon of this type is for what exactly?

Would someone who wants to hone is skill at long distance firing and is not even concern with home protectionnot have the equal right , like a man who practice practice pool, tennis, chess etc.

 

[spikepl]

Look up strawman http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Outside US, laps in the pool, a tennis match or a game of chess are seldom lethal for participants or bystanders

 

[Dick7Access]

I have a question for those in this thread who are in favour of having a gun for self defence.

Have they ever been in a situation when they have had to use their gun to protect themselves, their family or their possessions? It will be interesting to see what people say.

I think there is a difference between having guns that you would use against other people and guns that you would use for sporting/hunting purposes.

[FONT=&quot]I have put this out before, but I will repeat it so that I can answer this question. My RV was parked 6 feet or so from the front of a church in Austin, TX. Around 2 am my wife and I were awaken by someone banging on the side of the RV. I called the police immediately. I then retrieved my gun. I looked out the windows but could not see anybody. 20 minutes later the police showed up. The vandals of course were gone. We filled out a police report. The police left, the vandals came back. Three times that happened, and the third time they smashed my windshield. As 52 said the insurance company paid for the windshield, but should I have waited until they are actually beating upon my wife and me. My wife is in a wheel chair and understandably upset. Do you not think I would have been right legally and morally to have shot them?[/FONT]

 

[Adam Caramon]

Or do they just want their guns?
It's the old trick we all play - that of believing and doing what we want, and finding justification for what we do, if necessary.

This is exactly the case.

Does it matter?

Only if you care about Americans being killed.


As with many of the problems our country faces, the majority of the people that are incredibly stubborn on this issue are those in their later years. Another 20 or so years after a lot of these people have passed away, our country will be able to catch up to most of the other modern nations.

 

[Libre]

[FONT=&quot]Do you not think I would have been right legally and morally to have shot them?[/FONT]

Yes.

Regardless of the slightly convoluted phrasing of the question, the answer is yes, I do not think so - especially when they were "banging" (knocking?)on your RV but before they did anything wrong, but if you had a gun right then, no you would not have been justified in shooting them. Merely stating that you just knew they were up to no good (again, before they had done anything wrong) would be no defense against the charge of assault or homicide that you would be facing. If it were AFTER they broke your window, it would still be hard to make a plea of self defense.
This is exactly what is wrong with gun ownership.
And I'm amazed you think that a better outcome to this incident than having your insurance replace your window, would be killing these dangerous RV bangers and standing trial for manslaughter, just because, well, you know your rights and it's better to be tried than buried.
I know you're in Texas where you have a different attitude about these things, but in New York we ususally try to find out why someone is banging on our door late at night before we shoot them, if possible.

 

[Dick7Access]

This is exactly the case.



Only if you care about Americans being killed.


As with many of the problems our country faces, the majority of the people that are incredibly stubborn on this issue are those in their later years. Another 20 or so years after a lot of these people have passed away, our country will be able to catch up to most of the other modern nations.

You see Adam the question is not wither we want Americans killed. I have as much sympathy as the next person for the families of those innocent children. I truly believe in my heart that taking everybody's guns away will not only not help but actually make the situation worse. So the question should be how do we stop people from developing screwed up minds. That is a difficult question but I know the answer is not taking everybody's guns away. I however respect your right to your opinion.