Are you a Lefty or a Conservative (1 Viewer)

[jamesmor]

yes but the handgun is ideal for crime and murder and not much good for anything else, except pistol shooting as a sport. You can use it hunting but do you really use it often as a serious hunting weapon?

actually, where I'm from, yes.

I only hunt deer, so I normally use a high power for it, but I know three people who are going to be deer hunting this year with handguns, one having always hunted deer with them.

They are also sometimes used for squirrel hunting, hog hunting, and various other animals in the area.

We also use them to kill coyotes when they come around.

I've even known farmers who use them to put down their livestock/animals if need be.

---------
more comments now that i've read the rest of the thread
---------

Both of my children know about guns, they are 5 and 3. They understand that if you don't want it to die don't point a gun at it.

They've seen the end result of hunting (we butcher our own deer, and others when they bring 'em to us.) And know that the rifle was used to kill the deer.

As far as keeping them sheltered, we don't. There are very few things we won't outright discuss with them, as they'll be exposed to them all sooner or later and we'd rather them understand what's going on.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I've even known farmers who use them to put down their livestock/animals if need be.

It sounds like most of the these you've listed could be accomplished by using a more traditional hunting rifle.

The real issue is that if it could be proven that violent crime would be reduced by more gun gontrol on handguns specificially, for example, would people be for or against it?

 

[jamesmor]

It sounds like most of the these you've listed could be accomplished by using a more traditional hunting rifle.

most but not all. sometimes a handgun really is the best tool you have for doing what you want to do.

The real issue is that if it could be proven that violent crime would be reduced by more gun gontrol on handguns specificially, for example, would people be for or against it?

If someone could prove specifically that more control on handguns would lower violent crime I'd be all for it.

Hell if someone could prove specifically that more control on guns period would lower violent crime I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately I know the truth of that situation. In America it'd be wasted time as we can't shore up our borders.

I used to work with an illegal alien in Omaha that was a member of the mexican mofia, they don't go down to Cabela's or Bass Pro and buy their guns. They have them shipped with the drugs from mexico.

The US is in a situation right now where there are SO MANY guns in circulation, both illegal and legal that all you'd do is disarm the law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns, and man would they have a heyday with them.

 

[dan-cat]

The US is in a situation right now where there are SO MANY guns in circulation, both illegal and legal that all you'd do is disarm the law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns, and man would they have a heyday with them.

Isn't it plausible that the fight fire with fire scenario you are describing is the cause of the 'SO MANY guns' situation in the first place? Isn't it a result of a basic supply and demand market of a gun approval society?

 

[Vassago]

The personal attacks have to stop. Seriously, getting angry with someone on a forum over a different point of view is only going to kill you earlier. Take a chill pill.

 

[jamesmor]

Isn't it plausible that the fight fire with fire scenario you are describing is the cause of the 'SO MANY guns' situation in the first place? Isn't it a result of a basic supply and demand market of a gun approval society?

Actually I haven't said anything about fighting fire with fire (if I did, I don't remember it and I apologize for not remembering it.)

I was just showing how a gun or more specifically a handgun is merely a tool that can be used for it's intended purpose. Killing SOMETHING and while it lends itself to killing people very well, in my opionion that's not its intended purpose.

However, it definitely is plausible that a fight fire with fire scnario is the cause of so man guns. But like I also said, the criminals who use these guns for unsavory purposes don't buy or register them in the US so the laws affecting the ownership/use of those weapons wouldn't mean anything to them.

As a side note, while I do hunt/etc I don't actually have a gun in my home as I have no gun safe to keep one in.

 

[dan-cat]

Actually I haven't said anything about fighting fire with fire (if I did, I don't remember it and I apologize for not remembering it.)

Reading back you didn't refer to it explicitly...

The US is in a situation right now where there are SO MANY guns in circulation, both illegal and legal that all you'd do is disarm the law abiding citizens. The criminals would still have their guns, and man would they have a heyday with them.

I took the fight fire with fire scenario from this. That is to say, you were referring to the disarming of the 'law abiding citizens' in the sense that they are currently defending against gun crime with guns.

I'm arguing that it is the general approval of the above method of tackling gun crime that has caused the uncontrolled escalation in the amount of guns in US society. A basic supply and demand scenario.

I was just showing how a gun or more specifically a handgun is merely a tool that can be used for it's intended purpose. Killing SOMETHING and while it lends itself to killing people very well, in my opionion that's not its intended purpose.

I always find this point a little moot. The original intent of a handgun doesn't negate the issue that it is now a part of. That gun crime is out of control in the US and that it should be addressed.

However, it definitely is plausible that a fight fire with fire scnario is the cause of so man guns. But like I also said, the criminals who use these guns for unsavory purposes don't buy or register them in the US so the laws affecting the ownership/use of those weapons wouldn't mean anything to them.

As I said before the fight fire with fire scenario is based on the fact that US society condones the use of guns in defense against gun crime. There springs the escalation. I think it is an accepted point that criminals are not subject to the law until they are apprehended.

I believe the notion that we would be overrun with criminal activity if civilians were 'disarmed' is a result of too much sensationalism in the public media.

As a side note, while I do hunt/etc I don't actually have a gun in my home as I have no gun safe to keep one in.

I don't either and feel perfectly safe. Ironically an in-law relative has a virtual arsenal and was broken into last year.

As I alluded to in a previous post, I'd much rather be broken into than accidently shoot my next door neighbor's kid (or myself in the foot) because of an over-active imagination.

 

[Vassago]

As I said before the fight fire with fire scenario is based on the fact that US society condones the use of guns in defense against gun crime. There springs the escalation. I think it is an accepted point that criminals are not subject to the law until they are apprehended.

I believe the notion that we would be overrun with criminal activity if civilians were 'disarmed' is a result of too much sensationalism in the public media.

I refer back to my earlier post that even if they are outlawed in the US, they are not in our neighboring country that is overrun with gun crime and drug cartels. The guns would continue to come into the US, just not used by the good, only the bad. There was recently an article about a boat that was seized in Florida full of illegal weapons believed to be transported to Cuban cartels in Miami.

 

[Mike375]

I believe the notion that we would be overrun with criminal activity if civilians were 'disarmed' is a result of too much sensationalism in the public media.

So should all civilians be disarmed?

 

[dan-cat]

I refer back to my earlier post that even if they are outlawed in the US, they are not in our neighboring country that is overrun with gun crime and drug cartels. The guns would continue to come into the US, just not used by the good, only the bad. There was recently an article about a boat that was seized in Florida full of illegal weapons believed to be transported to Cuban cartels in Miami.

Which basically proves my point.

The demand for guns is high. Therefore your described supply.

The fact that civilians are currently armed is not curtailing this situation is it?
The demand is still high. In fact is it the cause of the escalation.

Cartels require superiority to operate. If a local business is resisting via use of a handgun, the cartel simply steps up it's operations. Hence your boat full of weaponry.

Cartels don't have an ethical reference. There is little difference between a punch in the face and an AK47 to them. They will however choose the most economically effective solution.

 

[dan-cat]

So should all civilians be disarmed?

As with many things, I don't think a significant proportion of the public has the capacity to think clearly on important issues and that the state needs to step in on such occasions. Gun ownership for self-defense being one of them.

When individuals acually desire for someone to break in to their home so that that individual is given license to murder is a clear example of that. An individual with that thought process doesn't have and shouldn't be afforded the capacity to influence social regulations on important issues. They should simply be excluded from the process.

 

[Mike375]

As with many things, I don't think a significant proportion of the public has the capacity to think clearly on important issues and that the state needs to step in on such occasions. Gun ownership for self-defense being one of them.

But do you think all civilians should be disarmed?

 

[Fifty2One]

No civilians need both of their arms to properly shoot a gun!

But do you think all civilians should be disarmed?

 

[dan-cat]

But do you think all civilians should be disarmed?

For the purpose of self-defense, yes.

 

[Mike375]

For the purpose of self-defense, yes.

But if someone owns a gun then self defense is up to them.

In Australia with our new gun laws a "genuine reason" is required for the shooters license and also for purchase of the gun. Self defense is not accepted.

However, in some of our states there is no issue with shooting an intruder as long as that shooting was considered reasonable force.

As a side note the highest gun ownership on a per capita basis in Australia is the Lebanese and Vietnamese and especially with non registered guns. In 1996 we had a "buy back" of semi autos as they became prohibited guns and the gov't paid compensation. Registration was also introduced at the same time. A standing joke in Sydney and Melbourne was....where do you find arab and asian free zones....answer....a gun hand in line....

I have a question for you. Let's say someone has rifles and there is an intruder, their intent unknow. Should the home owner just be passive and hope the intruder only wants to steal a laptop and whatever else is easy to carry.

If the home owner has very powerful magnum rifles, like I do (30-378 for any shooters here) and a shot is fired a couple of feet to one side of the intruder then whatever plans he had will come to an end. The muzzle blast of such a rifle pointed in your general direction will make it seem like the world has ended. Burst ear drums are the likley outcome. Then escort the intruder to the street. Would that be acceptable defense?

 

[dan-cat]

But if someone owns a gun then self defense is up to them.

In Australia with our new gun laws a "genuine reason" is required for the shooters license and also for purchase of the gun. Self defense is not accepted.

However, in some of our states there is no issue with shooting an intruder as long as that shooting was considered reasonable force.

Then the legislation is toothless and non-sensical. The reason for acquisition and it's actual use must match. If you have declared that your reason for the gun ownership is not self-defense then it must not be used for it. Anyone can say one thing and mean another. It's a case of misguided trust by the state to the individual. Another case of the individual not being able to conduct himself correctly within agreed terms and the state not accounting for it.

As a side note the highest gun ownership on a per capita basis in Australia is the Lebanese and Vietnamese and especially with non registered guns. In 1996 we had a "buy back" of semi autos as they became prohibited guns and the gov't paid compensation. Registration was also introduced at the same time. A standing joke in Sydney and Melbourne was....where do you find arab and asian free zones....answer....a gun hand in line....

Don't see the point of this side note other than attempting to distance yourself from my proposed causes of gun crime.

I have a question for you. Let's say someone has rifles and there is an intruder, their intent unknow. Should the home owner just be passive and hope the intruder only wants to steal a laptop and whatever else is easy to carry.

If the home owner has very powerful magnum rifles, like I do (30-378 for any shooters here) and a shot is fired a couple of feet to one side of the intruder then whatever plans he had will come to an end. The muzzle blast of such a rifle pointed in your general direction will make it seem like the world has ended. Burst ear drums are the likley outcome. Then escort the intruder to the street. Would that be acceptable defense?

The entire scenario has one underlying theme. A sensationalist perception of complete violent control of a situation. This is a myth.

1) You assume you have gauged the individual as a legitimate target in an objective way

2) You assume you will be in a position to make a controlled response in a timely manner

3) You assume the intruder will not retaliate with equal or superior force

4) You assume the intruder has not scouted you out before making his move to minimize your ability to carry out all previous points.

From your previous comments I think you fantasize with the idea of pointing guns at people and use the notion of self-defense to legitimize it. The legislation was aimed to weed out people like you but it obviously failed because well, people can lie about their intentions. A legislation made toothless by individuals not sincere in their intentions.

 

[Mike375]

Don't see the point of this side note other than attempting to distance yourself from my proposed causes of gun crime.

Just to illustrate that what happens wit guns laws is quite a different outcome t what the average person thinks.

1) You assume you have gauged the individual as a legitimate target in an objective way

2) You assume you will be in a position to make a controlled response in a timely manner

3) You assume the intruder will not retaliate with equal or superior force

4) You assume the intruder has not scouted you out before making his move to minimize your ability to carry out all previous points.

From your previous comments I think you fantasize with the idea of pointing guns at people and use the notion of self-defense to legitimize it. The legislation was aimed to weed out people like you but it obviously failed because well, people can lie about their intentions. A legislation made toothless by individuals not sincere in their intentions.

You are like our Greenies, won't answer the question.

Consider your first point

1) You assume you have gauged the individual as a legitimate target in an objective way

Well, he has broken into the house, that makes it pretty clear. If he breaks into the house then intent is not good. Why when his intent is not good should I have to be placed in a position that is not good.

You seem to think that if someone breaks into a house they have some sort of rights. As far as I am concerned once someone breaks into the house all rights are gone.

3) You assume the intruder will not retaliate with equal or superior force

Just the opposite. If someone breaks into the house then it should be assumed that any bad intent on their part is possible. On the other hand you seem to assume he is some poor misguided person whose mother treated him badly when he was kid and you should just accept it and take what he does as your contribution to his welfare.

Of course the reality is if there is an intruder you shoot to kill. Then no court case. The second reality in my case is the only way a person would break into the house if he was on drugs or a complete nut case. The reason being is it is too obvious that the house is heavily armed and well prepared. Thus if i have an intruder he will be either on drugs or a nut case and so needs to be dealt with accordingly.

In the case of other home owners, well....we get to read about them in the paper each day in Sydney.

and

4) You assume the intruder has not scouted you out before making his move to minimize your ability to carry out all previous points.

As I said above, if he breaks in then he is a case to be dealt with. If he only wants to steal the laptop etc then another house will be a better prospect.

With the exception of the nut case etc. my approach, unlike yours, avoids the problem up front. However, unlike you, I know if he breaks in he is a nut case or spun out on drugs. You don't know that.

But we come back to the opening post. You want to stop me. But I don't want to force you to protect yourself, that is your business.

 

[Mike375]

Then the legislation is toothless and non-sensical. The reason for acquisition and it's actual use must match. If you have declared that your reason for the gun ownership is not self-defense then it must not be used for it. Anyone can say one thing and mean another. It's a case of misguided trust by the state to the individual. Another case of the individual not being able to conduct himself correctly within agreed terms and the state not accounting for it.

Forgot this one.

In fact what happens is the applicant will in fact want the rifle for hunting, target shooting etc.

I think from the practical point of view "self defense" is not accepted and thus the only applications are from people where the license is primarily for hunting or target shooting.

But when it comes to self defense then the law allows you to use whatever is the best method available at the time.

 

[Rabbie]

I have a question for you. Let's say someone has rifles and there is an intruder, their intent unknow. Should the home owner just be passive and hope the intruder only wants to steal a laptop and whatever else is easy to carry.

If the home owner has very powerful magnum rifles, like I do (30-378 for any shooters here) and a shot is fired a couple of feet to one side of the intruder then whatever plans he had will come to an end. The muzzle blast of such a rifle pointed in your general direction will make it seem like the world has ended. Burst ear drums are the likley outcome. Then escort the intruder to the street. Would that be acceptable defense?

This assumes that you do not keep your rifle in a secure gun safe as required by law in most countries. If the weaon is in its safe then the intruder may well leave with your possessions before you can get our gun ready for action.

Also You should know where the bullet will go when you shoot a coupleof feet to the side of the intruder. It would be a problem if you accidently hit some-one a couple of hundred meter away.

 

[Mike375]

This assumes that you do not keep your rifle in a secure gun safe as required by law in most countries. If the weaon is in its safe then the intruder may well leave with your possessions before you can get our gun ready for action.

Also You should know where the bullet will go when you shoot a coupleof feet to the side of the intruder. It would be a problem if you accidently hit some-one a couple of hundred meter away.

Wrong on both

Firstly, there is no one and I mean no one can enter here without me waking and well before I get up. That would even include me leaving the door open. Secondly, 30-378 is kept in small safe bolted to wall and next to bed.

Safety of bystanders. 30-378 is loaded with 125 Sierra projectiles which are designed for the vey low velocity lever action 30/30. They won't even make 50 yards before they blow apart and that is just in the open air, that is, not contacting or hitting anything. But no small animal or person could survive a hit up close. They also maximise the muzzle blast due to the very high velocity of the light bullet. Muzzle brake is also off the rifle to protect me, maximise blast out the front of the rifle and of course to protect the muzzle brake as the 125 Sierra is already coming apart as it leaves the barrel and it would clip parts of the muzzle brake on the way through the brake.

Over to you