Should people be able to own firearms for self-protection?

[Mr. X]

Wish I could remember were I read this but I did read some statistics about how people who use guns for home defence actully have a greater chance of being harmed.

Now, the reasoning in this simple. Its called flight or fight. Now, most robbers carry a weapon of some sort mainly for intimidation. They don't want to use it, but they carry it so the person they rob will feel less of a desire to fight back (Another human responce, self preservation.) BUT if the home owner has a gun as well, and shows intent to use it, the the robber will be more likely to use his weapon as well (Again, human respeonce of self preservation)

Example. Robber is armed with gun and robs a house. The home owner is unarmed, and he runs and hides. Robber grabs some stuff and leaves. Now, on the other hand... robber is armed with a gun and robs a house. The home owner has a gun, and is intent on using it to defend himself. He fires a warning shot to scare the robber off, but he misinterprets this as a act of aggression and kills/severely injures the homeowner. Or, alternatvely, the home owner kills/severely injures the robber.

The end case here is that someone ends up either dead or severely hospitialized.

I don't care much for politics what side supports less or no gun control laws?

 

[Katja]

I think anyone owns the right to have a firearm.

 

[twocows]

Wish I could remember were I read this but I did read some statistics about how people who use guns for home defence actully have a greater chance of being harmed.

Now, the reasoning in this simple. Its called flight or fight. Now, most robbers carry a weapon of some sort mainly for intimidation. They don't want to use it, but they carry it so the person they rob will feel less of a desire to fight back (Another human responce, self preservation.) BUT if the home owner has a gun as well, and shows intent to use it, the the robber will be more likely to use his weapon as well (Again, human respeonce of self preservation)

Example. Robber is armed with gun and robs a house. The home owner is unarmed, and he runs and hides. Robber grabs some stuff and leaves. Now, on the other hand... robber is armed with a gun and robs a house. The home owner has a gun, and is intent on using it to defend himself. He fires a warning shot to scare the robber off, but he misinterprets this as a act of aggression and kills/severely injures the homeowner. Or, alternatvely, the home owner kills/severely injures the robber.

The end case here is that someone ends up either dead or severely hospitialized.

I don't care much for politics what side supports less or no gun control laws?

This is completely untrue. While sometimes this may be the intent, robbers are prone to anger if they don't get their way. I was listening to NPR the other day and they were talking about a guy who tried to mug someone, the guy said he didn't want to part with what he was wearing (a family heirloom), and the mugger got mad and shot him to death. Got 25 to life.

The situations you are describing are not realistic and you're essentially risking the homeowner's life on the criminal's conscience. That's such a poor idea that I can't begin to prefix enough "very"s to "bad idea" to accurately describe it.

 

[Mr. X]

Which is why the police always tell people to never antagonize a criminal. Your liable to get hurt. Or killed.

Had he not tried to resist/fight back, he would have just lost that item (Which he could potentially be recovered from the crminal) instead of his life.

 

[Azureth]

I don't understand why people use the "Pulling a gun just escalates things" reasoning. That's like saying when the Soviets were making nuclear weapons america should have just been all "Well, maybe we shouldn't keep making nukes either, it might escalate the situation" true it did come close with the cuban missile crisis, but at then end of the day no one would do anything due to mutually assured destruction. Sure if a guy threatened me with a knife he may decide to use a gun if I pull mine but I'd still feel much safer having one anyway.

I'd also like to add how disturbing it is that in many European countries (especially the UK) the criminal has more rights than the law-abiding citiezens. I have read many articles on how a person got in trouble for defending themselves and I'm not talking using a gun either. One story that really upset me was these criminals broke into this guys shop he kept them at bay with a knife but didn't hurt them yet HE got sent to jail.

 

[Mr. X]

Whats more valuable, a irreplaceable human life or some replaceable merchandise?

 

[Azureth]

Replaceable merchandise is worth more than a criminal.

 

[Mr. X]

And who is to say that the criminal won't redeem himself?

All of you supporting letal self defence of property, what right allows a person to become judge, jury, and executioner?

 

[Azureth]

Whether he can "redeem himself" or not isn't my problem he willingly broke into my house I don't care he's going to pay.

 

[Dawn]

If he (or she) runs away, and did not have any of the home owner's property with them, I'd say they should just let it go and call the police. If they do have some stolen property, you could always just shoot them in the foot.

Or the leg.

What happens if some jerk shoots higher though? Consider that a robber will probably be carrying whatever they stole on their person, and the goal of shooting them is to make them fall.

So obviously protecting one's goods isn't all that viable by shooting the person carrying them. The question is, does he then get charged with a crime, or can he simply make excuses as to lacking aim? I personally think he needs to be charged unless something outstanding throws his aim off.

Replaceable merchandise is worth more than a criminal.

The hate you're demonstrating is not a whole lot different than the hate that inspired/inspires hate crimes towards blacks, women, and homosexuals. These are humans beings you're talking about, human life, and you're refusing to respect that on the basis of differences you're intolerant to.

We're trying to find a balance between stopping criminals from committing crimes and infringing on an essential right. Sometimes, it becomes apparent that there is no way to do the former without doing the latter. It should never however be assumed to be the case.

 

[Azureth]

Or the leg.

What happens if some jerk shoots higher though? Consider that a robber will probably be carrying whatever they stole on their person, and the goal of shooting them is to make them fall.

So obviously protecting one's goods isn't all that viable by shooting the person carrying them. The question is, does he then get charged with a crime, or can he simply make excuses as to lacking aim? I personally think he needs to be charged unless something outstanding throws his aim off.



The hate you're demonstrating is not a whole lot of different than the hate that inspired/inspires hate crimes towards blacks, women, and homosexuals. These are humans beings you're talking about, human life, and you're refusing to respect that on the basis of differences you're intolerant to.

We're trying to find a balance between stopping criminals from committing crimes and infringing on an essential right. Sometimes, it becomes apparent that there is no way to do the former without doing the latter. It should never however be assumed to be the case.

Actually, it's better to kill him because of he's alive he can sue.

Also, hating criminals is not like hating blacks/women/homosexuals. A criminal is a criminal because he did something wrong and deserves to be punished, I realize people like you have this utopian world but it will never be. Part of the reason we have so many problems nowadays is BECAUSE we tolerate so much.

Just as Aristotle said: "Tolerance And Apathy Are The
Last Virtues Of A Dying
Society

 

[mondays suck]

Well, criminals do not exist without a reason. Well, while some do just enjoy it, I think many criminals are driven into it by poverty. No need to elaborate, how poverty causes crime is pretty obvious and has probably already been said in this thread anyway.
Anyway, what I am trying to say: Don't fight the criminals*, fight what makes them criminals.

*not in such a harsh way at least... there is no justification for murdering people and getting away with it, or at least there shouldn't be one.

 

[Dawn]

Actually, it's better to kill him because of he's alive he can sue.

Oh. So it's better to kill him so that he can't tell a court you did something wrong to justify being successfully sued. The real criminal in that situation is the shooter. =|

I don't think I need to explain how wrong that is.

Also, hating criminals is not like hating blacks/women/homosexuals. A criminal is a criminal because he did something wrong and deserves to be punished, I realize people like you have this utopian world but it will never be. Part of the reason we have so many problems nowadays is BECAUSE we tolerate so much.

Oh it isn't? So you're /not/ treating criminals like less than the human beings they are? Seems like you're doing the exact same thing with a different excuse to me. We, human beings, have the right to life. We have an obligation to defend that right up until the lives of others take priority. If you don't like it, then boy are you in the wrong country.

P.S. The law is in charge of punishment, not us. We have no right to dish out punishment like that.

Just as Aristotle said: "Tolerance And Apathy Are The Last Virtues Of A Dying Society"

Oh! So the apathy you show for the value of human life and the tolerance you show for whatever benefits you but not others is what now?

Nice out of context quote there. I'm /not/ apathetic to what you're suggesting we do, and I would /never/ tolerate such a thing coming into practice.

 

[RedLeopard]

Tax and restrict.

Increase the tax on purchasable firearms and ammunition (you can purchase 9mm ammunition for 15 cents a round at Walmart) and restrict how weapons are sold i.e. tighter regulations and requirements for being able to purchase firearms.
Mandatory training in order to be able to purchase a firearm, and proper testing to ensure that the person purchasing the weapon is competent and of high enough ability to be able to use a firearm safely and effectively.

Higher calibre weapons, fully automatic weapons and assault rifles should be FAR harder to acquire from distributors.

Higher punishments for carrying un-licensed firearms, more requirements to be able to carry them too. More action by the police to search suspected people for illegal firearms.

 

[Azureth]

Oh. So it's better to kill him so that he can't tell a court you did something wrong to justify being successfully sued. The real criminal in that situation is the shooter. =|

I don't think I need to explain how wrong that is.

No, because the court system is messed up and the person can do a lot against you alive than otherwise. I remember a story where a burglar broke in hurt himself while doing so and sued and won! How ridiculous is that? A criminals life is not worth dealing with our messed up court system.

Oh it isn't? So you're /not/ treating criminals like less than the human beings they are? Seems like you're doing the exact same thing with a different excuse to me. We, human beings, have the right to life. We have an obligation to defend that right up until the lives of others take priority. If you don't like it, then boy are you in the wrong country.

P.S. The law is in charge of punishment, not us. We have no right to dish out punishment like that.

I don't consider criminals human beings.

Oh! So the apathy you show for the value of human life and the tolerance you show for whatever benefits you but not others is what now?

Nice out of context quote there. I'm /not/ apathetic to what you're suggesting we do, and I would /never/ tolerate such a thing coming into practice.

No I care that criminals get the punishment they deserve.

You are apathetic because you think we can just pat them on the head and say "Now, you realize what you did was wrong, right? Good, now go out and be a good person!" life doesn't work like that. You are far to naive.

 

[RedLeopard]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
I don't consider criminals human beings.

Law and morality are two entirely different things, and the people who legislate are not ruling on morality, but on law.

You should recognise that a crime is not an indicator or morality per se. Murder is not necessarily an immoral act, but many legal activities would, if you had any authority to decide what is right and what is wrong (who does) may be immoral in of themselves.

 

[Azureth]

Law and morality are two entirely different things, and the people who legislate are not ruling on morality, but on law.

You should recognise that a crime is not an indicator or morality per se. Murder is not necessarily an immoral act, but many legal activities would, if you had any authority to decide what is right and what is wrong (who does) may be immoral in of themselves.

See, I hate how nowadays there is really no "right or wrong" everyone can justify everything. Makes me wish I could go back in time to the 50s where everything was clear cut and people knew how to act and behaved and those that violated it were shunned/punished accordingly.

 

[RedLeopard]

Yes, so clear cut back in the 50s.

Even if things were so clearly defined, what would make those definitions correct.

What is wrong with being able to justify something if it can be rightly justified accordingly? You are quick to not recognise someone who breaks the law as human, when I do not see any indication that you could adequately explain why.

 

[Azureth]

Okay, then how are people supposed to act and behave then? By your logic I should be able to go and kill someone and get off by saying "Well, what's right and wrong is subjective to you killing that person may be wrong, but to me it's okay". It's this thinking that has led to the moral decay in our society.

 

[Livewire]

Okay, then how are people supposed to act and behave then? By your logic I should be able to go and kill someone and get off by saying "Well, what's right and wrong is subjective to you killing that person may be wrong, but to me it's okay". It's this thinking that has led to the moral decay in our society.

Blatant disregard for human life is to blame for the moral decay in this society, as noted by your post saying returnable merchandise is worth more than the criminals life. What makes you think you get to pass judgement?