Firearms for self defense poll

[Mali]

Quick poll for those interested:

Do you live in a country that allows civilians to own firearms?

Do you live in a country that allows civilians to carry firearms?

Do you agree or disagree with firearms for self defense? Why?

Thanks!

[Goest]

The day there is a trustworthy government is the day the world ends. Everything in your life is an intricate manipulation that will lead to your eventual demise.

Why not make it faster by carrying something that will almost certainly make it so? Whichever way it goes, your life will either be made shorter or longer so isn't it worth the risk?

[Kyzarius]

The day there is a trustworthy government is the day the world ends. Everything in your life is an intricate manipulation that will lead to your eventual demise.

Why not make it faster by carrying something that will almost certainly make it so? Whichever way it goes, your life will either be made shorter or longer so isn't it worth the risk?

oo mindless rhetoric.

[jibber]

I have the right to BEAR arms, and carry arms, and own arms. Damn right I'm going to exercise my rights because no one is honest in this world. Self defense, peoples.

[edit: for Pali, since he's a stickler.]

[Kyzarius]

its not, do you think everyone shold have the right to have weapons...

its more, do you trust your neighbors with said weapons.

[Goest]

oo mindless rhetoric.

You say that but I'm for the right to bare arms. Sorry if my viewpoint is too radical for you.

[KRins]

Forget self-defense... put me in a traffic jam and I will reach for the imaginary handgun under the seat like... 9 times bare minimum. self-offense ftw.

[Twinblades713]

[Pali]

Bear arms, people, not bare.

As for the poll...

Yes.

Yes.

Too broad of a question.

[f0xx]

I don't know what you mean by "fire arms", but there are guns that are not lethal. Gas guns for example.

I use this logic: if my country can't offer me protection, then it is up to me to protect myself.

The only problem here comes from people who are not going to use the guns for protection. If there is political will though, this problem can be addressed and solved.

[Pali]

Much of my personal problem with the "should be people be allowed to own guns?" debate is that there are points on both sides that I agree with: the populace of a county being allowed to own weapons is a check on government power over the individual and I value that check, but guns being in individual hands in modern Western countries (most of which are fairly democratic) means guns are almost never used for this purpose. Not only do we not use guns for this purpose, but as a society, we eagerly decry the use of violence for political ends... despite violence for political ends being how most of our countries' democratic governments came to power, how slavery in the US was ended... but we view violence for any cause as the wrong way to go about things.

And while I agree that violence should be avoided whenever possible... there are times when it isn't possible. There are times when fighting back against a repressive power is the only recourse left to people, and I don't want to deny them that ability. Even if the United States, as I think it is now, is a country where violent uprising against the government isn't justified - it's possible that it may be in the future, and I don't want to deny that future populace the means needed to protect themselves from exploitation. EDIT: However, this doesn't do much to console me with the thousands of gun-using murders and tens of thousands of non-lethal gunshot wounds that happen in the U.S. every year either.

In the end, I think the debate is focused on the wrong subject. The question shouldn't be "despite our knowledge that people owning guns will kill other people with them for unjust causes, should we allow people to own guns in case they require them for a just cause?" Rather, the question should be "how do we keep people from being in situations where they feel the need to kill another for an unjust cause?" It's simpler to focus on the guns debate - we get a fair split, there's a lot of yelling on both sides, and in the end almost nothing changes either way. It's not as easy to realize that our current economic, social, and political systems place a lot of people in crappy situations that they are willing to try to shoot their way out of because they don't see a better course of action.

[J.Twendrist]

So long as gang bangers and thug life wannabes are totin' glocks and the like I most certainly will have guns.

[KRins]

So long as gang bangers and thug life wannabes are totin' glocks and the like I most certainly will have guns.

Amen... When in doubt, shoot out.

[Pali]

So long as gang bangers and thug life wannabes are totin' glocks and the like I most certainly will have guns.

Really? Why? Do you really think you having a gun on your hip in most situations is going to drastically improve your chances of survival? If you're walking down the street and someone points a gun at you demanding your wallet, do you really think that going for the gun on your hip is a smart move when he's already pointing his at you? If you're one of several dozens of pedestrians who happen to be caught nearby during some gang shootout, is going for your gun and starting shooting at anyone nearby and drawing attention to yourself a smarter move than just staying facedown on the ground? Are you wearing this gun for the exceedingly rare possibility that you'll be present for the time when someone happens to be pulling a gun on someone in an absolutely morally clear situation, where you wouldn't feel any guilt or remorse for killing this person afterward? Or is the idea of wearing this gun just something that makes you feel a little bit safer, rather than actually making you safer?

The best way to survive a gun fight is to never get in one. That means that whether you're strapped or not, when someone pulls on you and demands your wallet you give it to them. There's a deterrent factor to wearing a weapon openly, I won't deny that - but the idea of actually going for a gun when someone's already pointing one at you is suicide, and the idea of shooting someone as he walks away with your wallet is murder, so beyond trying to scare people from not pulling a gun on you in the first place I don't see the point.

And once again, I can't help but point out that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what the 2nd Amendment is about - protecting the people from tyrannical governments, not from criminals. If that's your justification for wanting to carry guns, then the 2nd Amendment doesn't seem to cover your motivation, and I have serious problems with people carrying weapons for the purpose of vigilante justice.

[KRins]

I never carry outside of the home, based almost strictly because it freaks people out... and creates stress I don't need despite carrying entirely legally. That being said... god help the person who breaks into my house. If you come onto my property uninvited, I would just ask you to leave. You are prowling around my house in the dead of night... asking you to leave is out of the question... I might ask you to get on the ground. How you respond to that question is going to directly dictate my reaction. My bedroom is next to the front door... another bedroom is at the back... if you run towards either exit, I am going to assume you are either coming at me or at my family... not something I take lightly.

[Pali]

Depending on what state you live in, KRins, you could have very serious legal trouble for shooting someone who breaks into your house unless you can convincingly argue that you had cause to believe that they were an imminent threat to someone (and no, in many places, "I woke up and he was in my house" is not sufficient cause).

Regardless of the legality, however... do you seriously think that someone deserves to pay with their life for robbery? Do you really consider your possession of a TV or some jewelry to be of greater value than a human being? Do you really think that if you wake up at night, have a gun in hand, and find a robber in your house... that while you're pointing a gun at him, and he starts running, he's running to one of the bedrooms to try to hurt someone? Best guess is he's looking for the quickest exit from what he was hoping would not turn into a potentially-deadly situation.

EDIT: And again... NOT a situation that the 2nd Amendment was designed to cover. If we're going to own guns for the purpose of defending ourselves from criminals, then we'd need a new amendment for that justification - right now, the 2nd Amendment covers owning firearms for the purpose of defending liberty from government oppression, NOT individual self-defense from criminals. Laws regarding self-defense manslaughter allow the use of deadly force for protection, which tends to include guns, but it is NOT the legal rationale in the U.S. Constitution for the free ownership of them. Even granting your arguments, you guys are at best making the case that there is a practical benefit for owning a gun, not that there is a constitutional purpose to doing so.

EDIT 2: To make this point a little more forcefully... here's the 2nd Amendment: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." I bolded a phrase that I think is important, because that phrase is explaining the justification for not infringing upon the people's right to bear arms - to protect the security of a free State. No other amendment in the Bill of Rights actually has a phrase like this saying why it is there, but the 2nd Amendment does, and I don't think it's by accident. You cannot simultaneously say that you are owning a gun to protect your home from criminals and say that your right to own a gun for that purpose is covered by the 2nd Amendment - it isn't. Your right to own a gun is covered - you owning it for that reason is you owning it for an unconstitutional reason (legally speaking, the police and the law are meant to protect your home from criminals, not you unless absolutely necessary to protect lives - which, in the case of most home break-ins, it isn't).

[KRins]

I don't know... its like joining the military. You made a conscious choice to put yourself into a potentially dangerous situation. In that scenario, I don't have the time to stop and ask, "Hey man, are you running for the back door or to grab a hostage?" As you said earlier... the best way to avoid something dangerous is to not put yourself in such a situation. In Florida, if you break into someone's house... you are placing yourself in a very dangerous situation. I don't know if you are just a down on your luck guy trying to score a quick buck or a tweaker with god knows what kind of malicious intent... and quite frankly... I'm not gonna give you too many seconds to explain yourself. Also, as you said above... if someone has a gun, do what they say. If you are in my house to loot, pillage, rape, or whatever and I stroll out with a shotgun... its just a damn good idea to listen to what I have to say.

EDIT: As a reference:Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;

Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

ANOTHER EDIT: Florida also believes in the Castle Doctrine. I need not retreat from my home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. So should a burglar approach me in any sort of violent fashion... I'm double justified.

[Pali]

I note you avoided actually answering any of the questions I asked you. Here they are again: do you seriously think that someone deserves to pay with their life for robbery? Do you really consider your possession of a TV or some jewelry to be of greater value than a human being? Do you really think that if you wake up at night, have a gun in hand, and find a robber in your house... that while you're pointing a gun at him, and he starts running, he's running to one of the bedrooms to try to hurt someone?

EDIT: At this point we're discussing less whether firearms should be legal for people to own, and more the ethics of shooting someone for breaking into your house. We have officially strayed off-topic without any response yet to my points regarding constitutional reasoning for owning firearms versus modern reasons for owning them and the lack of purpose beyond deterrence in carrying one publicly (this matters, as deterrence being the only justification seriously weakens the argument for concealed carry laws).

[KRins]

Hmmm... I cannot answer that. If he is robbing me and using the proceeds to fund terrorism or child porn... then yes I am totally justified to gun him down in my mind. If he was robbing me to put food on his table, by law I am no less justified...but morally I would feel worse. If he was running away from me and puts his hand on a bedroom door (mind you... a glass door to the outside world is maybe 4 paces from either bedroom door) then I feel I am totally justified because I am not going to get into a stand-off with a burglar where my life or a loved one's life is the stakes. I do not consider any material good (particularly my fairly cheap belongings) more valuable than a human life... but I value my mother, sister, or father far more than someone who already has shown brazen disregard for our property and well being by entering the house with the intention of stealing from us. So... the answer would be... unless you comply with my demand that you get on the floor/put your hands up OR make a DEAD STRAIGHT bee line for an exit... and said exit doesn't require you to get within arm's reach of me... I'll be shooting. That's just who I am... I don't trust you if you already have been caught with my own eyes committing a felony against me. I'm not saying I'm gonna plug you in the back of the head... but something bad involving projectiles is gonna happen in your general vicinity.

As far as the original Constitutional intent for the law... I feel the military of almost any modern country, particularly the United States, is sophisticated to the point that the weapons owned legally by the public would stand no chance against National Guard soldiers much less our more advanced and deadly elements. I don't think a hunting rifle has too much of a chance against a cruise missile. As with numerous aspects of the Constitution (The bit regarding the quartering of troops seems to come to mind), certain things as conceived during penning simply do not and cannot be applied to the world we currently live in. While the Constitution holds the greatest weight... new laws are made every year because people cannot see into the future. Laws regarding internet use were not on the books in 1776, as the concept of the internet was not even the beginning of an idea at that point. I do not see things like the Castle Doctrine as unconstitutional because the evolving entity of the United States deemed such a law necessary, which was either not thought of or deemed unnecessary at the time of the penning of the Constitution.

[Pali]

I actually agree with pretty much your entire post... other than that you can't possibly know what a robber is intending to use any profits from robbing you for, so assuming he's using it to fund terrorism as justification for gunning him down isn't something I'm down with.

I also agree that the original Constitutional intent of the 2nd Amendment is fairly antiquated and has lost a lot of its meaning... but not all of it. Resistance movements that aren't well funded or well equipped in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown that determination and ingenuity can still cause plenty of hell for a modern army. If nothing else, hunting rifles would be preferable to no guns at all.

EDIT: Also, I never said the Castle Doctrine was unconstitutional - I questioned how ethical it is.

[Goest]

Unless your state has illegally taken your right to have HAVE arms, anyone that is on your property without your permission is as good as shot in the head. No court can argue "how did you know this person that broke into your house had ill intentions?"

It's just common sense.

[Pali]

Unless your state has illegally taken your right to have HAVE arms, anyone that is on your property without your permission is as good as shot in the head. No court can argue "how did you know this person that broke into your house had ill intentions?"

It's just common sense.

There are number of states in which this is not the case. If you're in a state that is colored red on the map below, you are not allowed to shoot someone merely for being in your house uninvited. If you're in a state colored yellow, you must first inform the intruder of your intent to use deadly force before doing so.

[KRins]

Unless your state has illegally taken your right to have HAVE arms, anyone that is on your property without your permission is as good as shot in the head. No court can argue "how did you know this person that broke into your house had ill intentions?"

It's just common sense.

This is why you have to take courses to carry concealed... In a lot of states, you are going to prison for aggravated assault with a firearm... pretty much a bare minimum 3 year stretch regardless of where you are.

[Nekky]

I have a friend who was out drinking with us one night after a game, and he had his drink spiked (later medical tests proved this). While drunk, and under the effects of whatever drug his drink was spiked with, he got confused which apartment he lived in. In that area, there are a lot of streets and apartment buildings that look deceptively similar. He climbed onto the ground floor balcony of what he thought was his place, but it was actually the same address one street over. While he was trying to open the balcony door, the people who actually lived there called the police and he was taken away.

He ended up not being charged, because he was so sick the police took him to hospital and found that he'd been drugged. He apologized to the family later that week, and from what I know they all just laughed about it.

I'm very glad he doesn't live somewhere where it's "Just common sense" to shoot someone in the head if they're on your property uninvited.

[Pali]

I'm very glad he doesn't live somewhere where it's "Just common sense" to shoot someone in the head if they're on your property uninvited.

As am I... and I'm glad that I live in a place where it isn't as well. I've found a random drunk person or two in my place before as well, and it's never ended badly. Luckily I've not been the drunk in that instance before... but I definitely have friends who have.

I find it ironic how many Americans exist who will simultaneously proclaim us the greatest country in the world while holding such fear of their fellow countrymen.

And yes, I've had my place broken into before, I've had stuff stolen, and I've had a gun in my face. A close friend was beaten by four guys with clubs during a robbery a couple months ago. I'm not unfamiliar with the darker side of life. I'm not against owning a weapon for self-defense - but the assumption behind such concepts as the Castle Doctrine, that a person's life doesn't warrant a few moments' consideration, is one I take serious issue with.