Gun play?

[Lobo_8]

You know Etoile, I'm GLAD you disagree. That means you have your opinion, I have mine and here we have a public forum for debate. But I'm not going to debate this with you. In my home there is no place to hide. My home is at best 1200 sq ft with a very simple lay out. If someone walks in the front door and I'm in my bedroom, I have no real way of escape, nor do my kids who are too young to open a window they can not reach.

Having a weapon in my home makes me feel more comfortable. If a weapon has no comfort value for you then don't keep one, and I sincerely hope you never have the need to own one.

-Burns

 

[ZRT]

Home invasion is way off topic, but I want to address it. Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason for gun ownership. Yes, it is your Constitutionally-protected right to have a weapon, for self-defense, etc. But let's face it, when the Constitution was written, we had houses that were too small to have places to hide, no phones, no alarm systems connected to response centers, and no law enforcement just moments away. Yes, some people can't afford alarm systems or live in the boonies where law enforcement takes a while. But many Americans live in the suburbs with no worries about home invasion. Yes, you have a right to protect your home, but I think it's silly. Let the professionals handle it.

Commence flaming...

Not going to flame you by any means, just going to disagree heartily.

I was in the same boat as Lobo- I lived in an nine hundred square-foot apartment, second floor, for most of the past three years. One entry/exit, other than going through the window, no place to hide.

If you honestly think I was intent on tossing the woman I lived with out the window as a means of getting away... no.

Police response? The police will show up in time to cordon off the area and commence drawing the chalk lines. Unless there's a standoff of some sort, police show up after the fact. Even if the response is a couple of minutes out, there's the whole 'gotta call the cops, gotta communicate your situation and location to the dispatcher', etc. You're talking three to give minutes. In the meantime, your perp has rendered you into swiss cheese with whatever implement suits him.

Point of interest: in the state of Texas, the police have a higher bad shoot rate (shooting the wrong person in an incident) than licensed concealed carry holders do. The reasoning is pretty obvious- the carrier most likely is the intended victim in the first place, so they know who the bad guy is.

Finally, the people who can afford security systems, have reasonably large houses, live in areas with good police coverage grids, well, they typically live in areas that don't have nearly the same rate of burglary/home invasion in the first place. It's precisely the people who don't have those advantaged circumstances who need the ability to protect themselves.

 

[Netzach]

It's because a hell of a lot of people do not live somewhere the "professionals" give a flying F about protecting that I'm against regulation in the places where even pro-second people seem to love the idea of regulation. (Inner cities.) I have trouble saying this when I read about or hear about or KNOW about the arms race that is gang warfare, and I realize that the desire to stop proliferation is tempting for all the right reasons, but I don't think it will stop the problem. The problem has to be stopped before guns are even in question.

The people who should not have guns are going to have them by illegal means.

If you live in a community where gun violence isn't a regular happening, I rather like the idea that you're the last person who should be taking the returning fire option out of the hands of people who aren't blessed thus.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

As a Brit with no automatic constitutional right to own/carry a firearm, I'm finding this thread very interesting. There's an ongoing campaign here as a significant percentage of police officers believe that every cop should have a gun at all times. I'm unsure whether allowing this would reduce street violence or escalate it. Currently, knife crime is more prevalent than gun crime, particularly among younger people who run in gangs or are involved in illegal stuff like drugs or whatever. If every cop carried though, I think that every brainless teen wannabe G would either want to carry or feel obliged to. It's also a sad statistical (UK) fact that knife crime victims are usually the good kids who would never dream of walking around armed, much less plunging a knife into someone over a trivial altercation. There's already an undercurrent of fear and suspicion where youths who would not ordinarily choose to carry knives and live in disadvantaged areas start carrying one because they're scared, not because they're violent, feral, out of control teens. If that kind of fear escalated to guns, there would be a lot more violence on our streets. If you have a knife, you have to be pretty skilled, determined or lucky to do serious damage. If you have a gun, it's arguably far easier to maim or kill.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this post and I'm aware that it's off topic, these are just my thoughts.

 

[WriterDom]

. If you have a knife, you have to be pretty skilled, determined or lucky to do serious damage. .

It all depends. If I say "look, I have a knife, let's fight." that's one thing. I can conceal my Gerber in one hand. Innocently start to pass you on the street. Open the locking 5 inch blade with one hand in less than a second and plunge it into your belly before you even know I'm hostile.

 

[Lobo_8]

In all fairness I could do that same thing with a darrenger.

I think you bring up a good point Velvet, but you have to look at access. My understanding is that since firearms are so looked down upon in Europe in general there are no real gun shops to speak of. Not saying there are none there just aren't many.

In America being able to buy a weapon is relatively easy. There are towns with less than 1000 people that have a gun shop. In large cities you get to shop around for the best price. The availability factor is what I think the biggest difference is.

It is far easier to seriously injure or kill, but blades are by no means less dangerous. On average there isn't a lot of meat standing between a blade and your heart. A 4-5 inch blade between the second and third rib will kill someone just as easily as a bullet.

-Burns

 

[culloden]

Home invasion is way off topic, but I want to address it. Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason for gun ownership. Yes, it is your Constitutionally-protected right to have a weapon, for self-defense, etc. But let's face it, when the Constitution was written, we had houses that were too small to have places to hide, no phones, no alarm systems connected to response centers, and no law enforcement just moments away. Yes, some people can't afford alarm systems or live in the boonies where law enforcement takes a while. But many Americans live in the suburbs with no worries about home invasion. Yes, you have a right to protect your home, but I think it's silly. Let the professionals handle it.

Commence flaming...

No flames. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, and I fully respect your right not to keep a loaded gun. But there's another side to the issue. Check out this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24slay.html.

That particular home invasion happened in a wealthy Connecticut town, to the family of a doctor who more than likely had an alarm system. As the saying goes, "When trouble happens in seconds, the police will respond in minutes." Nothing against the police here - that's just the reality.

For good measure, check this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090815/ap_on_re_us/us_harlem_shooting

 

[VelvetDarkness]

It all depends. If I say "look, I have a knife, let's fight." that's one thing. I can conceal my Gerber in one hand. Innocently start to pass you on the street. Open the locking 5 inch blade with one hand in less than a second and plunge it into your belly before you even know I'm hostile.

I get your point but it's not premeditation I'm thinking about here. There are always going to be people who want to kill somebody for one reason or another. I'm thinking more of impulsive crimes, such as wounding or killing a cop who's trying to do his job. You have to be pretty fired up to start stabbing indiscriminately or to attempt to kill a cop using your own physical strength behind the blade.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

In all fairness I could do that same thing with a darrenger.

I think you bring up a good point Velvet, but you have to look at access. My understanding is that since firearms are so looked down upon in Europe in general there are no real gun shops to speak of. Not saying there are none there just aren't many.

In America being able to buy a weapon is relatively easy. There are towns with less than 1000 people that have a gun shop. In large cities you get to shop around for the best price. The availability factor is what I think the biggest difference is.

It is far easier to seriously injure or kill, but blades are by no means less dangerous. On average there isn't a lot of meat standing between a blade and your heart. A 4-5 inch blade between the second and third rib will kill someone just as easily as a bullet.

-Burns

Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? It's a Michael Moore film. I'm not sure when it was made but at that time, Michael got a free rifle for opening a bank account and purchased ammunition from Wall Mart. That to me just seems absolutely irresponsible. Gun shops are one thing but access to weapons or ammunition in supermarkets just seems crazy.

If you have seen the film, how accurate or unbiased would you say it was?

 

[WriterDom]

I get your point but it's not premeditation I'm thinking about here. There are always going to be people who want to kill somebody for one reason or another. I'm thinking more of impulsive crimes, such as wounding or killing a cop who's trying to do his job. You have to be pretty fired up to start stabbing indiscriminately or to attempt to kill a cop using your own physical strength behind the blade.

My guess is cops want guns to combat other guns. Not so much knifes. No matter where you live, guns can be gotten for the right price outside the law. Did you know in the Czech Republic it's legal to carry two concealed handguns on your person if you have a permit? Think it would be that hard to get a Czech to sell you a stolen gun to carry back to London?

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

i don't understand gun "play." but then, i don't understand rape "play" either. the way my brain works, these things would be utterly pointless and silly to me without being absolutely real. so, while i can understand the use of a gun as a tool to create fear, trust, power, and many other things...i cannot understand the use of a fake gun that cannot be loaded as a tool to create what...sexual excitement??

but again that's just my weirdness. have no desire to stare down the barrel of a gun personally, but if someone were to subject me to this, it would have to very much be real and serious and not at all fun and kink and games.

I dont know about gun play but rape play is very arousing.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

Home invasion is way off topic, but I want to address it. Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason for gun ownership. Yes, it is your Constitutionally-protected right to have a weapon, for self-defense, etc. But let's face it, when the Constitution was written, we had houses that were too small to have places to hide, no phones, no alarm systems connected to response centers, and no law enforcement just moments away. Yes, some people can't afford alarm systems or live in the boonies where law enforcement takes a while. But many Americans live in the suburbs with no worries about home invasion. Yes, you have a right to protect your home, but I think it's silly. Let the professionals handle it.

Commence flaming...

Not a flamer, by nature but 2 weeks ago I was damned glad to have a loaded gun when someone showed up at 2 am thinking no one was home. *shrugs*

Edited: I was alone, about 25 miles from anyone.

 

[Etoile]

If you have seen the film, how accurate or unbiased would you say it was?

Michael Moore is the master of spin. Nothing he produces is unbiased. He always has an agenda. It happens that his agenda and mine frequently line up, so I "like" his videos, but he always has one. For example, when looking to interview people who hold an opposing opinion, he always interviews the dumb ones. Doesn't mean there aren't educated people who can articulately argue the issue, just means he doesn't want to talk to them because they might actually present something that will make him look bad or wrong.

I appreciate that nobody flamed me personally for my opinion.

 

[culloden]

Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? It's a Michael Moore film. I'm not sure when it was made but at that time, Michael got a free rifle for opening a bank account and purchased ammunition from Wall Mart. That to me just seems absolutely irresponsible. Gun shops are one thing but access to weapons or ammunition in supermarkets just seems crazy.

If you have seen the film, how accurate or unbiased would you say it was?

I wouldn't say anything Michael Moore does is unbiased. He makes his living by being biased and controversial. I'm certain the bank where Moore allegedly got that rifle had to operate through a licensed firearms dealer.

US firearms laws vary by state, and sometimes by city. For example, the gun laws in New York City are far stricter than the the laws in the outlying counties of New York state, which in turn are stricter than the federal law. It's very difficult to legally own a gun in many US cities, such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC. There are some overarching federal laws, and instant background checks are done when a firearm is purchased through a dealer. In general, federal law prevents convicted felons from owning guns, and requires that purchasers of rifles and shotguns be at least 18. Purchasers of handguns must be at least 21. Ammunition isn't as closely regulated in most places, although the same age limitations apply as with gun purchases. Wal-Mart, depending on the location, sells both guns and ammo. Like any other dealer, they're required to follow the law.

 

[Etoile]

DC used to have a ban on guns actually. They only recently got rid of that.

 

[culloden]

Michael Moore is the master of spin. Nothing he produces is unbiased. He always has an agenda. It happens that his agenda and mine frequently line up, so I "like" his videos, but he always has one. For example, when looking to interview people who hold an opposing opinion, he always interviews the dumb ones. Doesn't mean there aren't educated people who can articulately argue the issue, just means he doesn't want to talk to them because they might actually present something that will make him look bad or wrong.

I appreciate that nobody flamed me personally for my opinion.

Etoile, you're a reasonable person. That's high praise.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I wouldn't say anything Michael Moore does is unbiased. He makes his living by being biased and controversial. I'm certain the bank where Moore allegedly got that rifle had to operate through a licensed firearms dealer.

US firearms laws vary by state, and sometimes by city. For example, the gun laws in New York City are far stricter than the the laws in the outlying counties of New York state, which in turn are stricter than the federal law. It's very difficult to legally own a gun in many US cities, such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, DC. There are some overarching federal laws, and instant background checks are done when a firearm is purchased through a dealer. In general, federal law prevents convicted felons from owning guns, and requires that purchasers of rifles and shotguns be at least 18. Purchasers of handguns must be at least 21. Ammunition isn't as closely regulated in most places, although the same age limitations apply as with gun purchases. Wal-Mart, depending on the location, sells both guns and ammo. Like any other dealer, they're required to follow the law.

I never meant to suggest that MM wasn't biased, I was just wondering where he fell on a scale of 1 - very.

At the risk of sounding woefully ignorant, am I right in understanding there are two conflicting types of law? Is it that federal laws are countrywide but can be superceded by local ones? Sounds very complicated but then the USA is so huge.

 

[Homburg]

Home invasion is way off topic, but I want to address it. Personally, I think it's a bullshit reason for gun ownership. Yes, it is your Constitutionally-protected right to have a weapon, for self-defense, etc. But let's face it, when the Constitution was written, we had houses that were too small to have places to hide, no phones, no alarm systems connected to response centers, and no law enforcement just moments away. Yes, some people can't afford alarm systems or live in the boonies where law enforcement takes a while. But many Americans live in the suburbs with no worries about home invasion. Yes, you have a right to protect your home, but I think it's silly. Let the professionals handle it.

Commence flaming...

I agree and disagree.

I agree that home invasion, by itself, is a good reason to own a gun. If home invasion is really a serious worry, get a dog, specifically a large, loud one. A good-sized, noisy dog is the best home protection you can find, as study after study has shown that nothing will cause a crook to pass you by faster than barking.

I own firearms because I like owning them. Seriously. That is the core reason. I enjoy shooting, I enjoy the maintenance. I enjoy exercising a freedom that is seen as dangerous in most of the world. For me, as illogical as it may seem, nothing is quite so American as owning a firearm. And I don't say that as a jingoistic flag-waving republican mouth-breather. I say that as someone intellectually interested in the idea and concept of liberty. It is less some political standpoint and more a realisation of "Oh, I can do this."

That said, there are plenty of people for whom police response is simply not a real way to handle a dangerous situation. That line of reasoning has been handled by others. Your situation is such that this is not so much a reality for you as it might be for someone 30 miles from the nearest police station though.

--

DC used to have a ban on guns actually. They only recently got rid of that.

I hadn't heard. I am amazed. Wow. I did not think this would happen. Is it a real removal of the ban, or lip service? Can people actually buy without going through reams of paperwork intended to keep them from buying?

I really am stunned to hear this, and, regardless of my general stance on firearms ownership, my initial response is not a "Hell yeah!" The urban landscape is a complex one, and I do not immediately think that gun ownership will somehow fix the crime problem. Much like Netz, I consider the problem to be more a cultural malaise than a legal one.

 

[WriterDom]

I
I hadn't heard. I am amazed. Wow. I did not think this would happen. Is it a real removal of the ban, or lip service? Can people actually buy without going through reams of paperwork intended to keep them from buying?

I really am stunned to hear this, and, regardless of my general stance on firearms ownership, my initial response is not a "Hell yeah!" The urban landscape is a complex one, and I do not immediately think that gun ownership will somehow fix the crime problem. Much like Netz, I consider the problem to be more a cultural malaise than a legal one.

It wasn't by their choice believe me. The appeals court struck it down in 2007 and the USSC agreed when it got to them.

Six people filed a lawsuit and won.

 

[Homburg]

Interesting. I will sit back and watch. It may sound cold, but it will be an interesting experiment.

 

[BiBunny]

My personal opinion is that if you actually need a gun--when split seconds matter--, it isn't going to do you a whole lot of good to have one locked up and unloaded. While you're trying to get it out and load it, you're probably a dead man/woman.

 

[culloden]

I never meant to suggest that MM wasn't biased, I was just wondering where he fell on a scale of 1 - very.

At the risk of sounding woefully ignorant, am I right in understanding there are two conflicting types of law? Is it that federal laws are countrywide but can be superceded by local ones? Sounds very complicated but then the USA is so huge.

It's the other away around, generally. State laws can be more strict than federal law. They should never be contradictory, though. It's very complicated, with layers of law and some boundries that aren't clear even to lawyers. That's why the appointment of Supreme Court justices is such a big deal here. Our constitution reserves some powers to the federal government, and the rest are vested in the states, and the people. However, federal power has been growing incrementally larger since nearly the beginning, with a major acceleration during the 1930s and the 1960s.

Hope that helps.

 

[culloden]

I never meant to suggest that MM wasn't biased, I was just wondering where he fell on a scale of 1 - very.

At the risk of sounding woefully ignorant, am I right in understanding there are two conflicting types of law? Is it that federal laws are countrywide but can be superceded by local ones? Sounds very complicated but then the USA is so huge.

Two more points - I would say MM's bias goes to 11. But then, he's on the far end of the political spectrum from me. And your question was a good one. Our laws are complex. On the other hand, you have cricket. <G>

 

[Corylea]

And your question was a good one. Our laws are complex. On the other hand, you have cricket. <G>

*laugh* LOVE this!

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Two more points - I would say MM's bias goes to 11. But then, he's on the far end of the political spectrum from me. And your question was a good one. Our laws are complex. On the other hand, you have cricket. <G>

Bah! Another yank who doesn't know his silly mid-off from his deep square leg.