Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well a country like one I know well that thinks self defense is just plain wrong and that others should protect us
I like it here better
Since this is the country where people do stick up for others
I have always wondered why the government didn't give us guns for free. Practically everything we have a constitutional right to ,the government gives us free if we cant afford one.
I was at a developer's conference in DC a few years back and talking to some Brits. They had been to company provided training about how to act if they encountered an armed robber or assailant. It was very bizarre. It seemed like the kind of thing we (in the US) might imagine for a journalist going to the Middle East.
OP - I am a 69 year old man that is too far out of shape to attempt hand to hand combat with anyone. If I get into a fist fight, I lose. However, I am still fast enough and skilled enough to hit whatever I am looking at within pistol range. If attacked all I have to do us draw the weapon, thumb off the safety and pull the trigger. The gun goes boom a couple of times and whomever attacked me is stopped. Then all I have to do is call 911 and explain to the police what happened.
To me that is a far better tactic than calling the cops and waiting for a rescue. Minutes are far too long when fractions of a second count. It is far better to stop an assault even if you kill the assailant than letting him do that to you. There is a big difference morally and legally between killing in self defense than murder. The right to defend yourself and others from violence basic to being alive.
Europeans have beatings, robberies and murders just like any other civilization. As the level of terrorism increases I expect they will allow their citizens to be openly armed. Then they can, when confronted with a crazy pulling out an AK to gun down a bunch of people, eliminate that threat as quickly as possible. We, and they, need to encourage more people to be aware, alert and armed to be able to defend themselves before the police can get there.
OP - I am a 69 year old man that is too far out of shape to attempt hand to hand combat with anyone. If I get into a fist fight, I lose. However, I am still fast enough and skilled enough to hit whatever I am looking at within pistol range. If attacked all I have to do us draw the weapon, thumb off the safety and pull the trigger. The gun goes boom a couple of times and whomever attacked me is stopped. Then all I have to do is call 911 and explain to the police what happened.
To me that is a far better tactic than calling the cops and waiting for a rescue. Minutes are far too long when fractions of a second count. It is far better to stop an assault even if you kill the assailant than letting him do that to you. There is a big difference morally and legally between killing in self defense than murder. The right to defend yourself and others from violence basic to being alive.
Europeans have beatings, robberies and murders just like any other civilization. As the level of terrorism increases I expect they will allow their citizens to be openly armed. Then they can, when confronted with a crazy pulling out an AK to gun down a bunch of people, eliminate that threat as quickly as possible. We, and they, need to encourage more people to be aware, alert and armed to be able to defend themselves before the police can get there.
I agree with your entire post, except the part I highlighted. I am not aware of any government that has disarmed the populace, then turned around and walked it back.
”Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison
As to your overall theme, why should you risk being a victim, especially now that you are getting up in years. If you take a beating during a robbery, you might be permanently injured and suffer the rest of your life. Of course many a criminal does not want to leave witnesses behind, so even a strong arm robbery could easily mean your life is at risk.
Heck even though I am a big and well trained guy, why should I risk injury or death if someone chooses to attack me. Granted I have been in altercations while armed and never even thought of drawing my weapon. Yet as we all get older, and have physical aliments, firearms are an equalizer to help prevent predators from harming innocent people.
Alaska will break away from the Lower 48 before guns get taken away from us. DC does not understand sometimes how even the most simplest law affects Alaska greatly. Most of the countries that restrict gun ownership are mostly civilized, no wilderness. Come live in Alaska with no gun, you will either be a burden on the system with food stamps, or starved to death, if you do not have a high paying job. It's easy to impose someone's beliefs on different parts of society when you live comfortably away from it all.
"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." The National Guard is our well regulated militia. They are sworn to protect the American people on a local level.
I think the Supreme Court has consistently misinterpreted the second amendment and it should be reinterpreted to reflect 21st century realities.
Hunters, people in truly rural areas where there are still wild animals, etc should be allowed to have them. The vast majority of the people should be re-evaluated in terms of legal ownership of lethal weaponry. Will this be easy to achieve? Of course not, but it is the only course that a civilized people should be taking. Do we really all want to be packing in church or in a restaurant as the right wing Republicans would have us do? What kind of civilization do we want going forward?
You don't understand what the founders meant by "Well regulated militia". It means, among other things, a non-professional (civilian) fighting force. The National Guard is a professional force.
The history of militias in the US is a history of civilians gathering for combat against an enemy. It is not the calling up of a professional military.
But ignore all this (and I know you will). Just keep pretending that a government that would have to go door to door, with armed force, to seize guns from everyone but hunters is "civilized".
1) A previous poster said this - an inner city crime problem. Unfortunately, and I mean this in the least racist way possible... if you remove the inner city (black) crime statistics, the U.S.'s gun deaths would be closer to that European range. Still higher, but not as much higher.
2) A crazy person "shoot innocents to deal with my issues" or "go out in a blaze of glory" problem.
Both those problems are solvable within the parameters of the 2nd amendment.
#1 is a larger social problem that gun regulations will not solve. That is hard and will take a multi-varied approach. Obviously that is a problem that goes back decades.
#2 is somewhat easier. Background checks combined with a coordinated mental health policy would solve #2. There is no need to "take away guns" from anyone, but we could make sure that crazy people cannot buy guns as easily and/or make sure those crazy people are getting the care they need so they don't go and shoot people in a theater or whatever.
To anyone who thinks the National Guard is the "well Regulated Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment, I can only recommend that you read Title 10, United States code, "Militia". There you will find the TRUE definition of "militia" in the United States, both the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia.
You will also find a reminder that when you don't know what you are talking about, you would best be served by being quiet!
Here, I'll make it easy for you: 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
EDIT: By the way, how could this have happened? I thought Canada was one of the "civilized" countries that didn't allow guns!
That being said, I support a person's right to a fun only if:
Hobbies being just one of the purposes, as was already covered in previous posts.
1. They pass a VERY, VERY strict background check. This includes psychiatric evaluations and a history of a violent background.
Every state has different rules and procedures. In my case, you are interviewed in person by the local police chief or detective assigned to process written applications. You then have to provide two letters of recommendation from those not related to you. You also need to be finger-printed and checked for a previous criminal record. Psych evals are a slippery slope when controlled in a subjective manner.
2. If you're buying you're first gun, you must attend a course on gun safety.
Fair enough, and actually done voluntarily by many legal owners so they don't shoot their foot off.
3. Your gun must be registered with the state and federal governments. That prevents your gun for being transferred illegally to someone in another state with stricter gun laws.
Your gun must be sold through a federally-licensed dealer after receiving your own purchase license.
4. All person to person sales of guns must be registered with the local and federal government to prevent trafficking. This includes gun shows. If you sell it to someone and they don't register it, it should been treated as a gun trafficking charge.
Personal sales include a transfer form provided by the state police. We don't have gun shows in my state, so I can't speak to that.
5. As long as the gun is registered to you, you are responsible for it. If your gun is purchased in Virginia is used in a crime in NY, and you didn't report it stolen, it can be treated as if you were trafficking it.
Legal owners do not ignore a gun theft for much the same reason. You'd be a fool not to report it, unless you had no knowledge of the theft. Some states have looser purchase requirements. Mine does not.
But all in all, none of these things would do much of anything. If you have a thousand dollars and want a gun, a gun you shall have. Entire families in the Philippines, among other places, make their living by hand-crafting 1911 handguns and selling them up through the smuggling chain. They are known as ghost guns because they have no serial number and no history. These bring top dollar for that reason. Once used, the gun is sold for less and less as it accumulates more history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
