Even here it is dangerous: some *#$@$ing *#$@$ is already shooting    

Quoting Rico:

Quote:

The solution to the problem is obvious, we should not ban guns, but ban criminals. Remember the financial population bell curve, we have a small per cent, that just can't cope in your society.

(...)

I am sorry, but the statistics just don't support your opinion here.  Studies have shown that the poor and less educated are less likely to own a gun.  The vast majority of gun owners are middle class people with an education.

I just wish Charlton Heston had lived long enough to see this Supreme Court decision .

To add to Unicus comments about right to carry laws I would add that their is evidence that the possible presence of concealed firearms appears to have a deterrent effect on public mass shootings.  A person planning a mass public shooting rampage may be deterred by the possible presence of an unknown number of armed civilians in the area he plans to attack.

I grant that this impact is hard to quantify and certainly many mass shooters will not be deterred by the possibility of encountering armed citizens  but it is worth considering. As a related point the presence of armed civilians has helped stop at least two murder sprees that I'm aware of - the law school attack at Appalachian Law School? (two students retrieved their personal handguns and used them to help subdue the perpetrator) and a high school shooting in Mississippi (the principle retrieved his gun from his car and used it to subdue the shooter). I think it goes without saying that I would be be very happy if any retired (or former) cop or soldier chose to carry as they went about their daily routine b/c you never know when their presence (and their gun) might enable them to stop a mass shooter before they can kill more people.

My point in bringing this up is to illustrate that there are potential benefits to greater gun ownership and possession by the law abiding populace. This is particularly important when you consider that gun control advocates insist more and stricter laws will decrease crime when their is great evidence that these laws do not work and only disarm law abiding citizens.

Brian

GSyren,

As a matter of principle your comment has some merit -- using violence to resolve disputes can provoke a violent response. Using a gun or other deadly weapon to resolve minor disputes (as too often happens at late night clubs and bars in US cities) can in fact lead to shootings. There are a number of high profile examples of this (many involving professional athletes) that have occured in recent years.

This is a cultural problem in the US (and elsewhere) particularly with younger "macho" guys who want to be "respected". There are also numerous cases where knives are used. I'm friends with some police officers (one of whom investigates homicides) and he told me about a case where a young man out with a date for his prom ended up dead in his car in a drive by type shooting where the motive apparently was that he "disrespected" in some minor way the local gang and their solution to this was to kill this innocent young man.

While I vigorously defend the right to bear arms and the right to defend oneself I would acknowledge that their is a bad violent culture amongst some segments of our society. Unfortunately these are the types of people who do not obey gun laws (or most laws for that matter) and will use knives or whatever to strike out at those people they want to hurt.

However I don't believe that merely arming yourself (particularly in your home) is in itself violence. You seem to be suggesting that burglars are going to not use a gun if they are convinced the homeowner doesn't have one -- I think that's a pretty naive view of most home invaders. These guys are not interested in fair play in the slightest and are very interested in self preservation (and I prosecuted a few of them). No guns makes you more of a target and they'll carry one regardless becuase it either gives them the edge or levels the playing field.

However I think it makes a lot of sense for most people to try to prevent breakins with security systems, dogs, and/or locks than to rely on a gun alone (or at all). I don't own a gun and don't plan to buy one because I've never used one and would not be conifident in my abiility to use one successfully to defend myself. If I decide to get one in the future it will only be after I take some courses and do some target shooting. If you don't know or like guns, or have doubts about your willingness to use one you probably are better off without one but it would feel wrong for me to stand in the way of others who are comfortable to deprive them of them of what might be a great option for them.

Brian

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Quoting mdnitoil:

Quote:

I know this will really blow your mind, but there are millions of people right here in the USA who don't give any real thought to bad guys breaking in and wiping out the whole family.  Frankly, if I thought that way then a handgun wouldn't be enough.  I mean, who's to say that a whole pack of bad guy rapist murders won't break in?  In that case I'd need more firepower.

Your sarcasm is unappreciated. Your callousness towards victims of crime and how they may choose to cope with it also reflects the type of person you are. If one chooses to arm themselves as a result of being victimized then so be it.

I thank God I live in a country where I have a right to protect my family, myself and my property. If I choose to due it with kind words as Martin suggests or by force then that is my choice.

Quoting 8ballMax:

Quote:
Perhaps you need to get out of your bubble and try living in the real world  .

Sorry that you found my particular sarcasm offensive.  I'll try to suck it up better in my bubble.

Obviously I shouldn't be so subtle.  The sarcasm was in response to being told to get out of my bubble and join the real world.  I'm pretty sure any constructive conversation was pretty much dead at that point.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but it seemed obvious to me that there was only one right side to the issue and us bubble people just don't get it.  I'm open to other interpretations.

The bubble comment came first.

Its really not that big a deal.  Merely pointing out the "callous sarcasm" didn't just fly out uncontrollably as that post might have one believe based on the selective quoting.