quote: As I've said before, it isn't the capabilities of a firearm (rate of fire, range, concealability, ammo capacity, etc) that determines lethality to the target. Intent and skill determine that.
While there is truth there, the statement is false on its face. Why do we give our military assault rifles instead of 22 handguns? Because they are more effective tools when you are trying to kill someone.
But I think I see what you are trying to say. You cannot get deader than dead, and against an unarmed person, you should have no trouble finding obtaining a firearm that would do the job. But in an armed conflict, which I think was envisioned when the 2nd amendment was written, with all else equal, the better armed side will have the advantage.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Hmph.
I have to admit, DH and I own several firearms, of all types. I carry one every single day, not because I'm paranoid, but because I've had reason to use it in defense of myself and my children.
I'm not saying I've ever shot someone, or ever pulled it out and threatened someone with it. But I do live in a rural area. Once, when I got home from work late and had the kids with me, a strange dog came into our yard while we were walking to the front door.
In a very calm, firm voice I told the kids to freeze and put their hands over their ears, which they did. The dog bristled and growled. I took out my 9mm and shouted at the dog to scat. It growled louder, and started to come closer. I shot it.
It yelped, barked, and growled louder, still advancing. I emptied what was left in my 10 round mag into the dog. It was still moving as I hurried the kids around it and into the house.
When I came back out with a shotgun to finish the dog off (and no, I don't see this as cruel, I thought the dog was probably suffering from the multiple gunshots) the dog was dead.
On the other hand, my husband shot a dog a few months ago that had been running the horses. He used his .308, and the dog dropped dead after the first shot.
We both have excellent marksmanship skills, and practice regularly. But after that, can you really blame me for wanting a larger capacity magazine? I can't carry a larger round, my hands aren't strong enough.
IP: Logged |
But how do we reconcile the needs of a responsible gun owner (yourself very much included there) whose life does have distinct needs for such accessories (meaning larger ammunition clips... and I can truly sympathize with the problems of dogs running the horses, my family has lost a number of horses to that over the past three decades and I worry for my wife's horse) with some of the ones who have used those larger clips for distinctly more dastardly purposes.
How do we separate those with real need from those with criminal intent or the borderline sociopathic gun bunnies?
It comes down to the situation now where the fringe elements of the situation have ruined it for those who sit responsibly in the middle. If there's a better way, I'd certainly like to both hear and support it.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot separate out those that will use it irresponsible, short of some sort of Minority Report magic.
But just because some people might (will?) abuse it, that does not give the government the right to deny it to everybody. That's how you treat children, not citizens, IMO.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Make it less attractive and easy for criminals to get away with committing crimes with weapons. Really, it's very simple. Just enforce the laws we already have.
How's this: if you have a weapon during the commission of a crime, you get triple sentencing. If you use that weapon, you get triple sentencing with no probation.
Leave my guns alone. Does it make sense that I can own a suitcase full of 10 round magazines, but not one 15 round one...when it takes about 1.5 seconds to change a magazine? Especially when my gun was designed to hold 15, and feels better balanced and is easier to shoot when fully loaded? No wonder my husband calls 10 rounders "low-cap" mags.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well, really, from my perspective, it doesn't make much sense that you're allowed to own guns at all, but YMMV. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Well, if I didn't have that pistol, who would have kept me and my kids from being attacked? What would I have used? Think the dog would have listened to the 911 dispatcher on my cellphone?
IP: Logged |
posted
Had I been there I would have backed away slowly and not made eye contact, just like I've been taught to do and have done before. I'm not saying wild dogs aren't dangerous, but I am saying that there are plenty of people in rural areas who don't own guns who haven't been eaten beacuse of it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Easy to say, but what about my kids? When they froze, they turned to me, not toward the dog. I know not to look an aggressive dog in the eye, and it still growled and advanced.
Okay, it's possible I may not have had to shoot the dog. But how else do you deal with all of the strays-turned-wild that wind up out here? Left unchecked, they pack. You think one aggressive dog is bad, try a group of them.
And what about the dog my husband shot? Should we let it continue running the horses until it kills one, runs it into a fence and cripples it, or forces it to jump the fence and endanger motorists?
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disinclined to rebuke her, Bob (tL), since she was with her kids. It's one thing to base one's actions on what's happened before, but when the chilluns enter the equation, the fact that it probably wouldn't attack them is somehow less important.
I don't know that I'dve done the same as Boon-in fact I probably would not have done so-but it was not irresponsible or worthy of criticism.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what is saddest is that people really do feel that they NEED to carry a gun to be safe. I am curious why the "well regulated Militia" piece is so easily thrown off, though. "Regulated" and "Militia" bring to mind something more formal than wondering if the guy next to you is packing legal or illegal armnament. This is why police organizations aren't happy with all these Conceal and Carry laws. It is easy to pick out criminals on the street prior to that...if they have a gun, they are breaking the law. Now, though...they pull a guy over and see a gun, they have to hesitate long enough to cost them their lives.
But back to "regulated" and "Militia." What are those? Why are they ignored? "Regulated" means that there is SOME sort of regulation in terms of ownership, doesn't it? What is Regulated mean otherwise? The "Militia" part is even more intriguing? One could argue the State Police are, in fact, the well Regulated Militia. Remember, we tend to see ourselves as one country but in the late 18th Century, we were a collection of independent States who looked to the Federal government to help in the mutual protection. When the Amendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State" one wonders if they aren't talking about States having the right to be armed. In each State, then, we would need to have a well regulated militia to look after that safety. Madame Gunowner in her station wagon going to the mall toting a handgun just doesn't seem...well, regulated OR Militia. We are a nation that has been blessedly free of the NEED to have armed citizens in the street. We really don't have the need. Having talked with a family of survivors of some of the recent racial cleansing in East Europe, I can honestly say we have it pretty good and any paranoid delusion that makes one feel the need to go armed into the bright day is really, really sad. If people HONESTLY feel that the government is going to come into our individual homes, weapons in hand, en masse...well, you have more issues than simply carrying a gun around will help.
posted
I agree that we shouldn't judge Boon, without having been in her position first. Hard to know what each of us would do in the same situation.
That said, I also do live in the country, and own horses. I do not own a gun.
Now, on the up side -- what happened to Boon would probably not ever happen to me, because MY dogs would not allow it. No stray (and there are lots of strays dumped and dogs that run loose) can get anywhere near our property without our dogs making it clear they are not allowed. Same with our horses. So I would never have to be in a situation like Boon's. If there were a stray dog running my horses, I would probably call the appropriate county department and let THEM come out and take care of the stray.
I have had need, on one occassion, to call my neighbor to come to my farm with HIS gun to shoot a rabid skunk in my front yard that was chasing my dogs. That was one instance that I did wish I had a gun. But found a solution none-the-less.
And once a deer dragged itself up into my front yard -- had obviously been hit by a vehicle and survived -- but the impact had torn off it's hind leg. I called the county and they came out and destroyed it (not too good of shots either -- took them several tries).
Those types of things make me sometimes I wish I still had a gun once in awhile. I used to be an expert marksman. But when I really think about it, then I think....."nah"..... don't want one again.
posted
I didn't mean to rebuke her, for some reason I thought she'd asked what somone else would have done. My mistake.
Although, I still feel like the only stories people I know tell me that involve something dying are the ones where a gun is pulled. Where in similar situations where one isn't pulled everyone gets out with all their pieces. Granted, it's impossible to tell what might have happened had a gun been added/subtracted from any scenario. I just can't shake the notion that the last thing having a gun on hand does is make you safer.
Edit: What I wrote wasn't what I thought. It may will *still* not be, but it's one step closer!
[ March 10, 2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
ummm...
nevermind. I get really worked up and emotional about this issue, and I've spent way too much work time on it already. I'll bow out now, at least until I get home tonight.
posted
Someone asked why I own a gun. I bought my rifle for hunting, and I inherited my shotgun from my grandfather. I was really glad I had a shotgun when a guy who had done some yardwork for me a few times got aggressive and pushy not long ago. Some badguys don't give an angry woman much respect. But every badguy I've ever come across definitely WOULD give respect to an angry woman with a loaded shotgun.
I would hope I never had to hurt anyone. I am a very peaceful person. It bothers me to have to kill bugs. But if someone by being agressive made me feel threatened enough to have to shoot them, I would not think of it as something *I* caused to happen, but rather something *they* caused to happen, by threatening me.
I would defend other people, too, who were being victimized. I would hope I could manage it without hurting anyone, and in fact I've been able to stop fights and things several times just by standing up to people and saying "stop that at once" in a commanding tone. I am sure I would mourn, too, anyone whom I had to kill. I would hate that very much. But I would still do it.
Life is precious. But the life of the agressor is not MORE precious than the life of the victim.
posted
I wanted to point out to those who compare the U.S. with Europe, that in Switzerland, all males must serve in the army, and when they get out, they keep their fully automatic rifles. Nearly every household in Switzerland has an assault rifle. Yet their rate of gun violence is very low. Not the least reason for that being that everyone knows all law abiding citizens are well armed.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at least in Switzerland, we also know that every man with a gun is trained in how to use it, when to use it and when not to use it. Not so, over here. If everyone who wanted to own serious gun hardware had to be in the military, there would be a lot of unrest. But, it DOES say "Well regulated Militia" so maybe THAT is what they are talking about?
posted
But do we have any such well-regulated millitia? Short of joining the National Guard, that is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I understand of what a millitia is, the police force doesn't count. That's because if you are a police officer, that is your job and your career. A millitia is composed of non-career militiamen who answer the call to arms only when it is needed.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, A militia is an organization of private citizens who are armed, ready, and unemployed by any government to fight for the country, repelling of invaders, or the even the overthrow of a government if neccesary.
posted
Here's an interesting forward I got today... not really any sort of valid argument. But I got a kick out of it.
quote: The number of physicians in the US is 700,000. - Accidental deaths caused by physicians this year is 120,000 - Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US Dept of Health and Human Services).
The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 - Accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500 - Accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. Please alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.
Scary thought: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
