I am one of the people who 'totes' a gun legally with a permit where I live. I do so on a daily basis. I have no agenda to use the tool called a gun on another human being unless he first threatens me with violent force. I want an equalizer against a guy threatening me with force. My first defense is complete avoidance of bad situations and people. In other words it is to use my brain and to avoid placing myself into a bad situation to begin with.

My second it to get out of a situation that has gone bad if possible. That is not always possible especially when those with malevolent intent decide that I am to be their victim. My last resort is to shoot a person.

I personally do not deserve to be characterized as a person who is blood thirsty, nor do any of the individuals that I personally associate with who carry a gun. You may be surprised who does carry a gun. You'd be even more surprised at the number of folks who keep them at home.

I've always viewed a gun like the venom of a rattle snake. Venomous snakes, instead of killing their predators/prey through brute force as in strangulation, inject enough poison to kill them and hundreds or thousands more.

I think the gun control issue could be settled by banning the use of guns for people unable to display sufficient intelligence, facility, and responsibility in handling them. It's the 21st century! Why haven't we quantified intelligence yet?

For someone who often pulled the "your argument is falacious" card at jbark, you're being pretty contradictory, benzyme. The "Im older then you" (and the "I lived in more places" argument is a good example of a falacy, and quite frankly its ironically an immature one. Not only that but you obviously picked the wrong person to use that argument against, considering he's lived in more countries than you and AFAIK is older. Not that it matters though, again, its falacious argument, but it was just funny to see.

Another point: You had previously claimed that there is a negative relationship between gun ownership and violence, jbark and I showed you stats that proved the exact opposite, and then you de-legitimize it by saying "it shows the obvious", which makes no sense if you previously used that as an argument in your favor.

Now another thing: Its interesting that you people who defend guns (and arent hunters) use two main arguments: "keep the government in check " and to "prevent against the evil ones out to rob/rape me and my family".

Regarding the 'keeping the government in check', I responded already over and over how you are not keeping the government in check for the absurdities commited by the government at this very moment, subtle or not, and also nobody answered why then is it more logical to have a gun and not build trenches/buy armored cars/gas masks/stock food and what not, if all of these would be just as (or more) useful in case of this illusionary imagined event of a fight between you and the government.

Also, is it just me who sees how absurdly fear-based your arguments are? Doesnt it look EXACTLY like how the government wants you to live your lives? "Fear the evil ones out there, buy guns, have a fake sense of security, and go about your day".

How many of you gun owners had your house invaded and had the gun save your life (and know that as a fact not having a gun would have turned out worse)? I would be willing to bet very few if any of you, and yet this is the argument that absurdly justifies millions (!!!) of people buying guns and ammo, supporting the nastiest industry existent, and making countries ironically less safe because of it.

Now, fact is, as many said, guns are already spread throughout america and other parts of the world. Yes. But is that an argument in favor of guns, or in favor of showing the absurdity of mankind that we should be trying to oppose? Call me a dreamer but the world would be a billion times safer if people investing so much energy in defending guns and owning them would stop spreading their fear-based arguments (and therefore reproducing a fear-based life to others) and use the money previously invested in guns and energy previously invested in spreading these arguments to instead social/educational causes.

I would say same argument applies in the macro scale for governments and military spenditure. In the same way as fear is used to make people buy guns and feel safe at an individual level, so does the government use irrational fear to justify military budget (1.3 trillion a year worldwide!), which comparing to education spenditure (only 2,7 billion worldwide, or 0,2% of military spenditure, in programs to guarantee the Education For All objectives) its ridiculous.

That being said, I should really really stop posting in this thread because its being very hard to keep my ego in check and actually respond from a calm conscious point. Also I think after 15 pages we arent going anywhere to far

I just ask one thing though, that for those that keep responding, that they really try to do it in a reasonable manner and not with sarcasm and agressive tone. Thank you.

i'm sorry, i lied....this will be my last comment in here.


What happens when you prohibit something criminals can profit off of? What are the arguments for drug prohibition? Now apply the same scenrio to guns.

...and grenades and tear gas and landmines and rocket launchers and WMDs, right? You do see, I truly hope, the error of that statement and its logical extension.

JBArk

No, i don't hate america. It's just that when people start talking like "the right to own a gun is the most sacred god-given right, blabla" that i get a little edgy and like "hey man, start burning your crosses when the wind doesn't blow in this direction please, because i don't like the smell of it that much".

I don't hate america, but i do hate the evangelicals, neocons and everything else on the far-right, whether they're americans or europeans i don't care.

The people on the far-right can only be described, and i'm gonna try to be as moderate as i can now, as disgusting, filthy, stinking piles of rotting shitfeces.

And they're extremely dangerous.

yes JBark, i understand what your saying. Most criminals don't have thoughs weapons though. But also like i said before, i find comfort in God, so i really don't care if humans survive. But others don't find that comfort, where to draw the line is unkown.

Polytrip, i also understand your view....i hate the same people. Everyone standing down dosen't mean that everything will get better though, it can just as easily end in chaos. I wish everyone could grow up and think about being secure before having babies so they don't end up robbing people to support that kid, and that people could live without their main concern being thier bank statements.

Like i said before, its not as easy as guns should be illegal or guns shouldn't. Its the people within this world that make good people want to have a gun just incase, not because they want to shoot someone. But on the other hand there are more guns avalible to criminals.

But making them all illegal want end the problem, it will increase the problem. The black market will expand and end up selling illegal guns to good people who end up going to prison and falling in with a gang to survive then being placed back on the street to more than likey fall into a life of crime because people don't want to hire people who have been to prison.

endless, I'd like to see a quote where I said gun ownership keeps the government in check.
that's a bit simplistic thinking. historically, that's why the 2nd was enacted; but today, it has different implications (I'd also like to see where I imply that gun ownership has a negative relationship to gun violence [never said that]. It's painfully obvious...like more cars on the road, the greater the chance of accidents occuring. duh.)...but good luck proving that your average law-abiding citizen is highly likely to go out and shoot someone.

Home protection is a completely a different story than an uprising or vigilante justice. I live in a town with a high occurrence of rape and aggravated assault. You're telling me that a loaded shotgun in the house isn't a good deterrent? I disagree.

a gun is just a tool, and I've owned three of them. they never left the house unless I was going target shooting.
I don't agree on much with the conservative right, but this happens to be one of the bill of rights which I do observe.

that being said, I'm not a violent person...i'm a scientist; but I don't think gun control in the form of prohibition solves anything. people will always find ways of killing other people.

*kicks the lifeless horse*

Do you find the same thing true about the far left? IMO there is no difference in stench between the likes of Glen Beck & George Soros, or Barbara Boxer & John Bohner. Evangelicals are perhaps even more dangerous than any politician. Though I think I feel sorrier for the Evangelists, because they are spouting regurgitated ideas, most of which insult the most rudimentary intelligence. They fear having any idea of thier own as it might lead those who listen to look at them as a heretic. As long as Evangelists fear the body they represent, they will always be unenlightened. I would love to hear an Evangelist that has come up with a single enlightened idea. I love enlightened minds regardless of what the content is, or how it fits (or doesn't) into my mindset.

see, I also gave two examples...two instances of home invasion in this town of 50,000 this past year, where teens and young 20-somethings thought it would be a good idea to raid these two houses to rob its inhabitants. in both cases, they were shot by the people who lived there. the residents were investigated, and not charged with anything. perfect example of self-protection.

there's nothing to argue against a person's choice to defend him/herself in this manner.
defaulting to the police is for p#ssies, you could get killed before they ever show up. there's a better chance you'll live if you, at the very least, have a mexican standoff.

alright...i gotta confess...i've lived in a gang-infested area in san antonio in the past, which is another reason I have this sentiment. those clowns have illegally owned weapons for the most part; but it doesn't change the fact that a person should reserve the right to defend his/her own home from would-be intruders.

Ahhh, actually no there isn't. I cannot find the study (damn), but I read the stats awhile ago that state that crimes involving 2 guns on opposite sides as opposed to crimes where only one gun is involved had a 1300% higher fatality rate.

Since I cannot find the paper to support this, I have no choice but to turn the tables:

Where is your proof, where are your stats, man of science, to back up the outrageous and counter-intuitive claim that ", there's a better chance you'll live if you at the very least have a mexican standoff."

I await the studies.

JBArk

Yeah, the police here in the states have become more about getting revenue out of people then protecting and serving. They are more concerned about giving you tickets, or catching people like us, who believe we should be able to put whatever we want in our bodies, then they are concerned about getting to your house to save you.

I also would not want to be the only one w/o a gun if/when the economy finally completely collapses, I think it is probably going to get uglier then some think when/if they start austerity measures.

1300x ? source?

logic tells me that if someone is intent on shooting you, he/she will be more likely to shoot you if you're unarmed. with a gun pointed at him/her, then you may inject reason.
they're more likely to think twice.

"I cannot find the study (damn)"

"Since I cannot find the paper to support this, I have no choice but to turn the tables:"

Be nice if you read the post so I am not forced to cut and paste verbatim...

Or was that a cheap rhetorical device? a misdirection? Since you made the first statement, "...there's a better chance you'll live if you, at the very least, have a mexican standoff", the onus is actually on YOU, not me, to support it with sources.

lol, I'm waiting for one of you two to whip out a ruler.

rhetorical device? you're the one putting up random figures.

we'll never agree on this issue, because you live in a city in a socialist-like country that's safer than our state capital.
I've heard Toronto and Vancouver have higher gun murder rates (with illegally owned firearms, no doubt) than montreal; probably due to drug trade.

My 8 inch ruler has been out all along.

JBArk

8" ruler with no gradations for reference

So... you have no studies/stats/data to back up your claim. You are very evasive when it serves you my friend. I may be wrong, but I don't remember the last time you actually answered a question I fielded. Or that endlessness fielded for that matter. You choose instead to belligerently turn the tables and make puerile accusations of obviousness and stupidity.

And where I live is irrelevant, unless you are willing to acknowledge that living where you do may possibly blind you to other possibilities and other opinions. If not, let's leave locale out of it. And I started this to have fun and maybe learn a little bit more about the gun debate, but your persistent lack of respect is showing me that this is too sensitive a subject, so I will respectfully bow out now, with no offence taken . But if you want to respond to this, I will respond to your response one last time, so as not to bow out with the upper hand of last retort.

JBArk

like you, I can't find statistics on mexican-standoff vs. one person with a gun.
you provided statistics showing higher incidences of gun violence in certain states per 100,000
population, and other rhetorical articles. I have already given congrats on providing evidence of the obvious. You, however, haven't shown any statistical evidence to support your premise that your average legal gun-owner is likely to go out and kill someone.

and if you want to neglect the fact that areas of lower cost-of-living/socio-economic discrepancies are more susceptible to higher incidences of aggravated assault, rape, etc., that's your choice. I can post stats, but it's also pretty obvious.