Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

According to a Harris County grand jury, it might indeed fall under Castle Doctrine. Remember this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

Came out of his house to shoot two people who robbed a neighbor's house. He was no billed because the grand jury believed the robbers stepped into his yard.

I remember him quite well. I also remember commenting at the time that the best possible outcome would be Horn in jail for murder and two burglars still dead.

I'm not sure how this Quarrell X guy equates Castle Doctrine as being racist. The Grand Jury decision? Possibly. I wouldn't see it as impossible that the jurors saw the case and thought "I would hope my neighbor blows away anybody robbing me when I'm on vacation".

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Yes.


So it's your contention that Sailor shot just because he heard his accent, or because he can tell a Colombian from an Italian from a Greek from an Arab from a Jew from a Frenchman from a Brit etc etc etc?

Or are you just trying to shoehorn a racial element into this when there's no evidence it's the case?

I offered no contention at all.

I merely pointed out that the car window was indeed rolled down, in contradiction to the state which your own contentions were allegedly based upon.

Don't try to transfer your issues to me. That is a very weak sort of tactic.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Polaris

No kids here, and while I have caught one of the cats sneaking into my pantry I don't see either of the varmints being able to work the slide on my riot gun. If I eventually have kids I'll take the necessary steps to secure my guns.

Personally I don't see myself at a lot of risk. It's not a bad neighborhood, what Vanilla Ice said to the contrary (I'm up the street from where he went to high school). I keep the 870 because it's suitable to my needs, should they arise. Sort of the same concept as a fire extinguisher. It's not good for much else, really. I suppose it could be used for skeet shooting or hunting but I don't do those. Hell, currently I don't have a gun that I would take to the range, that's why I want the ACR (or, if it's banned, a lever action Marlin). The only others I have in the house are three .22s, two of which are broken and one which is merely a curiosity I've never fired.

The instant-access thing is because you never know when an emergency might arise. With the exception of weather events they tend to not announce themselves.

Crime really isn't all that bad. It's horrific in some areas - as Wildcat has noted, Chicago has a murder rate as bad as Congo - and that's as much, if not more, a social issue surrounding disparity in income and opportunity, gangs and disenfranchisement, and the War on Drugs issue than it is about guns.

I hate to even bring the piece of garbage up, but what Ann Coulter said about among white society in the US crime is about the same as in western Europe (where I take issue with her is the unspoken part of her statement, which is "so who cares?").

True, that's why I make sure my tin foil hat is properly grounded so if lightning hits I'll be OK.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by tsig

True, that's why I make sure my tin foil hat is properly grounded so if lightning hits I'll be OK.

The eff

[NoahFence]

I lol'd...

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The NRA deserve the blame for this sort of thing.

Really? Instead of putting it all on the person (people?) at the scene the NRA is to blame too? Sounds kind of woo to me. I get e-mail from the NRA and catch their sound bytes in the media at times, hasn't made me paranoid in the slightest.

Ranb

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

He doesn't seem to be substantively different from Joe Horn who did nothing legally wrong. Hell this guy wasn't on the phone to 911 so you cab argue he did less wrong.

Horn just shot people that many here are fine with being shot.

Arguing what the law is or is not, is not the same as supporting the actions of Horn.

Representing the support of some vague group of people from another thread is not exactly on topic for this thread now is it?

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by jimbob

As a non American this is a key point.

You have the right to have firearms, but so does the conspiracy nut or the incompetent fool.

By definition, the responsible gun owners are not the problem - the probem is that there are a lot if irresponsible gun owners and little way of determining whether a potential gun owner is responsible or not.

This is particularly difficult with people who are competent but with very odd survivalist/conspiracy beliefs.

The only way (That I know of . . ) to objectively determine if someone is responsible is by examining their actions within the totality of the circumstances.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

You make an important point, which is why the US 2d Amendment is different from the 1st, and why most countries that respect free speech do not vest their citizens with an unrestricted right to own guns. Someone who is overall law-abiding, but has paranoid ideas and poor judgment, can exercise his right to free speech, and no one is seriously harmed. When the same person picks up a gun, an innocent person might get killed.

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Originally Posted by jimbob

As a non American this is a key point.

You have the right to have firearms, but so does the conspiracy nut or the incompetent fool.

By definition, the responsible gun owners are not the problem - the probem is that there are a lot if irresponsible gun owners and little way of determining whether a potential gun owner is responsible or not.

This is particularly difficult with people who are competent but with very odd survivalist/conspiracy beliefs.

The only way (That I know of . . ) to objectively determine if someone is responsible is by examining their actions within the totality of the circumstances.

True, but by then it is often too late.

After a shooting one might find that there were plenty indicators that could have been taken to be warning signs, but I don't know how many false positives or indeed false negatives there would be.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by ben m;8956501[QUOTE=Charlie Wilkes

You make an important point, which is why the US 2d Amendment is different from the 1st, and why most countries that respect free speech do not vest their citizens with an unrestricted right to own guns. Someone who is overall law-abiding, but has paranoid ideas and poor judgment, can exercise his right to free speech, and no one is seriously harmed. When the same person picks up a gun, an innocent person might get killed.

]Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

[/quote]


And it is worth pointing out that Tunisia had strict gun laws yet started the Arab Spring. Egypt was mainly brought about by civil disobedience and the army refusing to crush the rebellion.

Many successful overthrows of tyranny have depended on free speech, but not on gun ownership.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by ben m

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

I would love to get rid of it completely.

In the US, it is entrenched in the political ecosystem. A gun is a fetish item for beat-down people who are too stupid to understand the forces that shape their lives, much less exercise any real control over those forces. But they can pick up a gun and pretend that they're in control.

Of course that makes them easy marks for political demagogues. Congressman Teabagger can stand up on the podium and bloviate about how he supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and the drooling sycophants are beside themselves with joy, completely unaware that their elected rep has a completely different agenda, one that is directed by his big money sponsors.

So, the US is stuck with the 2d Amendment.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your evidence that burglars enter homes with gun drawn is...?

Oh, right, you're just slaying that strawman you constructed.

Burglars may not even have a gun. Nearly twice as many burglaries as violent crimes all put together. Most burglars are avoiding confrontation. Any indication that someone is home and they're gone!

Burglary and armed robbery after a forced entry into a dwelling are different in impact, intent and frequency.

Originally Posted by WildCat

Almost all of the remainder are suicides, not accidents. And there's no evidence whatsoever anywhere that gun laws have an effect on suicide rates.

There is evidence that availability of guns, especially handguns, increase the rate of successful suicides.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Lax gun laws and strong gun culture leads to more guns. More guns means more suicides.

Originally Posted by Polaris

Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!

This is rather like the weak arguments made by people attacking self defense advice such as "Try not to walk around alone" and "avoid secluded areas" and "don't leave your drink unattended". Why should you? Because doing so is more likely to lead to a positive outcome, which is you surviving uninjured.

Leaving means two things:

1. You're out of harm's way
2. The intruder knows the clock is ticking, their time is limited before the authorities arrive.

Sure, having a pistols at dawn shoot-out might make for a cooler scene in a Western. It's just going to suck for the person who lives next door or the person across the street whose house is peppered with your crossfire. That's if you survive.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

I would love to get rid of it completely.

In the US, it is entrenched in the political ecosystem. A gun is a fetish item for beat-down people who are too stupid to understand the forces that shape their lives, much less exercise any real control over those forces. But they can pick up a gun and pretend that they're in control.

Of course that makes them easy marks for political demagogues. Congressman Teabagger can stand up on the podium and bloviate about how he supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and the drooling sycophants are beside themselves with joy, completely unaware that their elected rep has a completely different agenda, one that is directed by his big money sponsors.

So, the US is stuck with the 2d Amendment.

Not to pick nits, but: I am not beat down, I loathe the teabaggers and am not a fan of republickers or the NRA. I like the people in my neighborhood and get along fine with all of them I know/of and voted for Obama. But I still have guns where I can reach them (as can my wife), I have not fired any (except at targets and gun range locally) recently and they are just here in case of naughtiness from externals.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by ben m

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

Indeed and furthermore there is a clue in the name, the Second Amendment. So amendments are allowed and there have been twenty eight so far including an amendment of an amendment.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

This is rather like the weak arguments made by people attacking self defense advice such as "Try not to walk around alone" and "avoid secluded areas" and "don't leave your drink unattended". Why should you? Because doing so is more likely to lead to a positive outcome, which is you surviving uninjured.

Leaving means two things:

1. You're out of harm's way
2. The intruder knows the clock is ticking, their time is limited before the authorities arrive.

Sure, having a pistols at dawn shoot-out might make for a cooler scene in a Western. It's just going to suck for the person who lives next door or the person across the street whose house is peppered with your crossfire. That's if you survive.

Actually any intruder would have to kick down my door and find themselves blinded by a flood light as I point a riot gun at their neck from behind my bed, offering as small a target as possible. And the police will be on their way (like I said before, I've thought this out). But I'm in a somewhat unique situation where I will likely be unable to leave based on physical impairment and the actual layout of the house.

All the same, I wouldn't fault someone who doesn't leave - because at that point if you can't be secure in your own house where else can you be secure?

[Nessie]

My plan is not to be anywhere where I need a plan.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

My plan is not to be anywhere where I need a plan.

So you don't do fire drills in the UK?

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

There is evidence that availability of guns, especially handguns, increase the rate of successful suicides.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Lax gun laws and strong gun culture leads to more guns. More guns means more suicides.

There is other evidence - this concerns the change in the suicide rate in the UK during the period when moving the gas supply from toxic "Town Gas" to non toxic natural gas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00022-0018.pdf

I won't copy as this is a 1976 paper, and not sufficiently well scanned for text browsers, although perfectly legible..

On Page 88 (it starts at page 86, don't worry) there is are two key graphs.

In the UK, the main form of suicide used to be using the gas oven which was "town gas " and rich in Carbon monoxide. On the change from that to natural gas, this suicide rate fell for males, but other rates remained roughly the same so the overall suicide rate fell sharply. With Females the rate also fell sharply as this method became unavailable, but there was some compensation with other methods rising.

Looks as if removing easy access to methods of suicide reduce suicide rates.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by jimbob

True, but by then it is often too late.

After a shooting one might find that there were plenty indicators that could have been taken to be warning signs, but I don't know how many false positives or indeed false negatives there would be.

We could just remove all people's rights to do anything which could lead to dangerous behavior the moment they first show they cannot control their temper.

Regardless of extremes this is an epic concept for the worlds biggest slippery slope slide.

I believe outside of tightly defined objective standards no one should have the ability to preemptively remove another persons rights, no less permanently.

Anything else sends you down the slip n slide of making government everyone's parent, no one grows up, permanent children who need to be watched all day for any signs of trouble.

No thanks. I would rather accept the reality that people can be unpredictable at times and focus on the big stuff and leave these niche cases to the exceptions and not try to make a rule for everything restricting all possible freedom in order to marginally increase my perceived safety.

The REAL problem is that as individuals we have lost our personal responsibility.

No one is responsible for your safety but you.

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you. YOU are responsible for preventing your own death, for protecting your family, for protecting your wealth and happiness.

I am not responsible for protecting any of those things for anyone else.

My principles are such that if some person was slaughtering helpless people I would feel compelled to get involved and stop it, but that is not the same as being responsible to stop it, no more than being responsible to prevent someone from killing you or anyone else no matter what the circumstance regarding the perpetrators decisions to use a given weapon or not.

Trying to blame everyone in the world for your own lack of responsibility is the hallmark of all such protectionist legislation.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by jimbob

There is other evidence - this concerns the change in the suicide rate in the UK during the period when moving the gas supply from toxic "Town Gas" to non toxic natural gas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00022-0018.pdf

I won't copy as this is a 1976 paper, and not sufficiently well scanned for text browsers, although perfectly legible..

On Page 88 (it starts at page 86, don't worry) there is are two key graphs.

In the UK, the main form of suicide used to be using the gas oven which was "town gas " and rich in Carbon monoxide. On the change from that to natural gas, this suicide rate fell for males, but other rates remained roughly the same so the overall suicide rate fell sharply. With Females the rate also fell sharply as this method became unavailable, but there was some compensation with other methods rising.

Looks as if removing easy access to methods of suicide reduce suicide rates.

I think that should read "effective methods". An awful lot of suicide attempts fail because the method chosen is not sufficiently lethal or speedy. (Didn't some celeb's daughter recently try to suicide with some homeopathic cold remedy?)

Guns generally (Yes, I know. Not always.) work pretty well. If nobody is around to stop it, the old 'head in the oven' trick could be pretty effective as well. Both have the advantage of little or no expectation of extended suffering.

Potential suicides who are not firmly committed to their course of action can be deterred by such things when access to a quick and largely painless solution is easily available.

Overdoses frequently fail because the people don't understand what is lethal, and what is not.

I suspect that the ratio of successful to attempted suicides is much higher when a firearm is the method employed.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Actually any intruder would have to kick down my door and find themselves blinded by a flood light as I point a riot gun at their neck from behind my bed, offering as small a target as possible. And the police will be on their way (like I said before, I've thought this out).

This reads like pure fantasy.

Quote:

But I'm in a somewhat unique situation where I will likely be unable to leave based on physical impairment and the actual layout of the house.

"But what if I can't leave?"

Well what if the intruders were bulletproof?

For anyone who is able to leave their property during a home invasion leaving the best course of action is to leave the property. It's by far the safest course of action.

Quote:

All the same, I wouldn't fault someone who doesn't leave - because at that point if you can't be secure in your own house where else can you be secure?

Refusing to leave on general principle is the worst possible course of action. There again if you can't be gunned down in your own house, where can you be gunned down?

[Xulld]

Quote:

The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

Except that it is not a preface.

Pre means before. Its not before, it is not a contingent factor.

A militia is not a centrally organized group of armed men, it is the people themselves, armed to protect individual liberty by coming together as a community.

It does explain its need, to prevent tyranny, but it is not exclusive, it is not restrictive, it is explanatory.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you.

And if you're a truck driver, and you fail to maintain your brakes, lose control, and hit me, I suppose (a) it wasn't your fault, because the car was out of control at the time, or maybe (b) it's my fault for not getting out of the way?

If you're an electrician, and you miswire my house so there's 120V on the handrails, am I responsible for choosing to touch them?

Nice try at the libertarian slippery-slope rant, but here in the real (crowded, multiply-intersecting) world we use lots and lots of layers of laws to keep things running well. Lots of those laws constrain some people to protect other people. Lots of those laws try to balance the costs and benefits of these constraints, and this has been true for hundreds of years without resulting in the end of "personal responsibility". Gun laws have done and will continue to do the same. 100+ years of this sort of practical, goal-oriented, not-written-by-armchair-philosophers regulation have not invoked the bizarre slippery slope you mention.

30,000 deaths per year. Big number. Worth trying to stop before it happens.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by fuelair

Not to pick nits, but: I am not beat down,

OK, good to know.

But I was responding to Ben. What made you think I was directing my comments at you?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I believe outside of tightly defined objective standards no one should have the ability to preemptively remove another persons rights, no less permanently.

snip

The problem there is we're not allowed to figure out any "tightly defined objective standards" because the second we try to talk about that, the NRA nutters won't stop crying about their cold dead fingers.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Actually any intruder would have to kick down my door and find themselves blinded by a flood light as I point a riot gun at their neck from behind my bed, offering as small a target as possible. And the police will be on their way (like I said before, I've thought this out). But I'm in a somewhat unique situation where I will likely be unable to leave based on physical impairment and the actual layout of the house.

All the same, I wouldn't fault someone who doesn't leave - because at that point if you can't be secure in your own house where else can you be secure?

My set up is a bit different - but fire in either direction almost certain to be appropriate would not penetrate to anyone else's house (though if I pick up a Barrett .50...............).

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Xulld

We could just remove all people's rights to do anything which could lead to dangerous behavior the moment they first show they cannot control their temper.

Regardless of extremes this is an epic concept for the worlds biggest slippery slope slide.

I believe outside of tightly defined objective standards no one should have the ability to preemptively remove another persons rights, no less permanently.

Anything else sends you down the slip n slide of making government everyone's parent, no one grows up, permanent children who need to be watched all day for any signs of trouble.

No thanks. I would rather accept the reality that people can be unpredictable at times and focus on the big stuff and leave these niche cases to the exceptions and not try to make a rule for everything restricting all possible freedom in order to marginally increase my perceived safety.

The REAL problem is that as individuals we have lost our personal responsibility.

No one is responsible for your safety but you.

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you. YOU are responsible for preventing your own death, for protecting your family, for protecting your wealth and happiness.

I am not responsible for protecting any of those things for anyone else.

My principles are such that if some person was slaughtering helpless people I would feel compelled to get involved and stop it, but that is not the same as being responsible to stop it, no more than being responsible to prevent someone from killing you or anyone else no matter what the circumstance regarding the perpetrators decisions to use a given weapon or not.

Trying to blame everyone in the world for your own lack of responsibility is the hallmark of all such protectionist legislation.

and, very specifically, the police have no legal requirement to protect you. (US - though I suspect it is pretty universal).

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Except that it is not a preface.

Pre means before. Its not before, it is not a contingent factor.

A militia is not a centrally organized group of armed men, it is the people themselves, armed to protect individual liberty by coming together as a community.

It does explain its need, to prevent tyranny, but it is not exclusive, it is not restrictive, it is explanatory.

And, by the by, were a militia or other function set up for which carrying of weapons would be necessary, I would happily train and work in same.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by Xulld

From all reports this man was not responsible and does not represent me or any other gun owner. This thread is nothing more than a way to lash out against other forum members.

So you are readily admitting that irresponsible people have ready access to deadly weapons, yet you're in favor of continuing said policy (assumption, based on your postst)
and back the NRA which has opposed studies on gun related violence for decades and continues to activily fight ANY regulation that would better determine competency of said folks.


Wonder what the limit is on "single rouge" before loonies accept that it actually represents the norm?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

If you're sleeping and your guns are locked in their safe - as should be the case with responsible owners - you're screwed.

I'll respectfully disagree with this.

A home defense, self defense weapon, is of no use in a secured safe. There's safes that also have a quick action open in an emergency, which is what I use.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?

Me personally, I keep one tucked in between the mattress and the bed frame, in a specially made holster. (at night of course, not during the day. During the day, it's stored in the safe linked later.)

If someone kicks in my front door, I've got my gun read in about as much time as it takes me to wake, (which isn't much, I'm a light sleeper) and grab it. (less than about 5 seconds? Maybe?

Also, if you keep a gun for self defense, keeping it locked and the ammo separately also locked, it's no longer a self defense weapon IMO. But, I won't go so far as to say that everyone should keep a gun like I do. People with small children should use a quick open lock box.

Like this one.
http://www.hayneedle.com/product/gun...tbiometric.cfm

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Me personally, I keep one tucked in between the mattress and the bed frame, in a specially made holster.

Please tell me generally where you live, so I can avoid accidentally moving to a place where the prudent thing to do is sleep with a gun under your pillow.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ben m

And if you're a truck driver, and you fail to maintain your brakes, lose control, and hit me, I suppose (a) it wasn't your fault, because the car was out of control at the time, or maybe (b) it's my fault for not getting out of the way?

If you're an electrician, and you miswire my house so there's 120V on the handrails, am I responsible for choosing to touch them?

False equivalence LF.

Both of those situations are caused directly by someone's actions. If someone breaks into my secured home and takes my gun and shoots the neighbor, I am in NO way responsible because they were secured in my HOME. Someplace that the bad guy shouldn't have been to begin with. Plain and simple.

Now, if I left the item out in public, or within easy access of someone, and something happens, then I am partially responsible.

What you're trying to say is that if someone steals my car and wrecks it, killing a guy on a bike, then I am responsible. Which, of course, is not supported by logic, or any law that I am aware of. Unless you can point me to such a law (here in the US of course, since we're talking of US gun control) your comparison is of course, wrong.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Please tell me generally where you live, so I can avoid accidentally moving to a place where the prudent thing to do is sleep with a gun under your pillow.

1- It's not under my pillow and
2- Florida.

Did I suggest everyone do as I do? No. Is it advisable? Sometimes not.

A quick open safe, such as this
http://www.hayneedle.com/product/gun...tbiometric.cfm

is a good option for a SD weapon.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Xulld

It does explain its need, to prevent tyranny, but it is not exclusive, it is not restrictive, it is explanatory.

Ah, so you're in the "prevent tyranny" camp. Let me say this: if the 34% of Americans who own guns got together and decided to take over, the other 66% (including me) would say that gunners were imposing tyranny, not preventing it.

The handful of "militiamen" taking over northern Mali are not, for example, "preventing tyranny". They probably think they are, just like the

Even as an explanation, it illustrates what the Founding Fathers were thinking of. They were thinking of the Minutemen. They were thinking of the Green Mountain Boys. They were not thinking about Nancy Lanza or George Zimmerman or FPSRussia or Whatsizname From Aurora. Their next sentence, "shall not be infringed", which they thought was specifying some detail of national defense, accidentally gave these people an incredibly stupid, useless, and costly "right". But it's not a necessary right, it's not a democracy-preserving right, it's not a tyranny-preventing right, it's not a natural God-given right, it's just a stupid 1776-specific sentence in an otherwise-mostly-timeless document.

[triforcharity]

Ben,

Have you read "The Federalist" papers? Perhaps you should. It helps explain what their intention was. I'll give you a hint: you won't like it, because it goes against what you want to believe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Ben,

Have you read "The Federalist" papers? Perhaps you should. It helps explain what their intention was. I'll give you a hint: you won't like it, because it goes against what you want to believe.

And so what? Yes they would support domestic terrorism but we are not that enamored with political violence now.

[triforcharity]

Huh? I'm not sure I follow ponderingturtle. Can you elaborate as to what you mean?

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Really? Instead of putting it all on the person (people?) at the scene the NRA is to blame too? Sounds kind of woo to me. I get e-mail from the NRA and catch their sound bytes in the media at times, hasn't made me paranoid in the slightest.

Ranb

They have to have an influence of every single person for their actions to be considered bad?

They have to at least influence you specifically for their actions to be considered bad?