Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Coito ergo sum]

And personally, I would restrict the use of the word "gun nut" to those who go on and on about their selfish "rights", and cheer from the sidelines when a householder guns down an unarmed intruder...

Especially the last part.[/quote]

I don't cheer when anyone guns anyone else down.

However, if the word "intruder" describes someone coming into my house, without my permission, where my wife and baby daughter sleep -- you bet, I want that intruder to understand full well that he is playing with fire.

A knife wielding burglar? I don't want to engage in hand to hand combat, and I don't want a knife to wife's throat while I'm ordered around the house.

This shit about characterizing intruders who aren't packing heat as sort of innocent, and nothing to fear, man, I don't know where this comes from. If someone breaks into someone else's house without permission, they are committing an aggression -- a violent aggression - and the homeowner has the right - and I would add the obligation - to protect himself/herself and their children/family members.

[Coito ergo sum]

"I see no reason to have a gun, and I don't want one, therefore, anyone who does own a gun must be fucked up."

If a person owns a gun, and has no practical reason for owning a gun, then you have to look at psychological reasons. My view is that the main psychological reason is the feeling of power over other people that the gun provides. Relationships to penises, large or small, are probably imaginary. Feelings of power, though, are not.

People, and especially males, love power. For those who cannot gain political power (most of us), there is the alternative of holding a loaded firearm and knowing it gives you the power of life or death.

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

I grant that it is a legitimate reason in the context of military action or legally valid law enforcement.

self-defense is legally valid.

[Coito ergo sum]

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

No other western advanced nation.

Ah, usual qualifier -- we'll compare 8 tiny, homogeneous, insulated countries with the entire United States. Those pesky eastern European countries and such, we don't count them cuz they're not "western advanced nations." The result -- we compare US drug gangs, south Chicago, Harlem, the Bronx, Compton and other LA 'hoods, Puerto Rico, New Orleans, with "England" "Holland" and such. Leave out that the US is bigger than Europe, and we can compare many of our states -- like Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Montana, and all sorts of places where guns are freely available with the "western advanced nations" and have as low or even lower gun homicide rates.

We have some problems here in the US, but the problem is not with the average citizen owning guns. The problem is in a few very high crime areas, drug and gang-ridden areas. That's what we should be addressing.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.

We know that...

We are arguing that it is a bad law (as do many home-grown Americans), or at least that countries without such absurd laws have considerably less avoidable deaths in comparison...

In what country is it not lawful to use lethal force to respond to a physical threat???? Or, someone forcibly breaking into your home at night? There are maniac countries that tell their citizens that they have to lay their like a slug? Pray tell, which countries are these?

[Coito ergo sum]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

Bear burgers. Nom.

[Kristie]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.

We know that...

We are arguing that it is a bad law (as do many home-grown Americans), or at least that countries without such absurd laws have considerably less avoidable deaths in comparison...

In what country is it not lawful to use lethal force to respond to a physical threat???? Or, someone forcibly breaking into your home at night? There are maniac countries that tell their citizens that they have to lay their like a slug? Pray tell, which countries are these?

I think it was the 'via firearm' part he was talking about.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

This small planet is everyone's territory. I wouldn't shoot a bear if it wandered by my house. If his instincts tell him to eat me, though, then I'm going to do whatever I can do to survive. In Tennessee, it's not unusual for a bear to walk through your yard. If you want to roll over and get eaten, go ahead.

I get deer and alligators around my neighborhood. Not many bear in these parts.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.

We know that...

We are arguing that it is a bad law (as do many home-grown Americans), or at least that countries without such absurd laws have considerably less avoidable deaths in comparison...

In what country is it not lawful to use lethal force to respond to a physical threat???? Or, someone forcibly breaking into your home at night? There are maniac countries that tell their citizens that they have to lay their like a slug? Pray tell, which countries are these?

I think it was the 'via firearm' part he was talking about.

Oh, gotcha. So, the enlightened countries say, "go ahead and defend yourself, your home and your family..... in hand to hand combat at close quarters with what is likely a violent criminal...." Much better.

[Seth]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

If I'm in it, it's MY territory and every other living creature better not piss me off. I'm the apex predator of the planet, so I get to go where I want, when I want and do what I want...and eat anything I want. Bears can do bear things all they like...except challenge me for apex predator status, in which case I'm going to eat them. It's just that simple.

Adapt or die.

Fair enough. I hope the bear wins.

That's all I demand, is that my government not take away the weapons I need to compete against other predators. I'll decide whether or not to take the chance of encountering them and I'll decide what to do if I'm threatened, not some bureaucrat in Washington.

[Kristie]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.

We know that...

We are arguing that it is a bad law (as do many home-grown Americans), or at least that countries without such absurd laws have considerably less avoidable deaths in comparison...

In what country is it not lawful to use lethal force to respond to a physical threat???? Or, someone forcibly breaking into your home at night? There are maniac countries that tell their citizens that they have to lay their like a slug? Pray tell, which countries are these?

I think it was the 'via firearm' part he was talking about.

Oh, gotcha. So, the enlightened countries say, "go ahead and defend yourself, your home and your family..... in hand to hand combat at close quarters with what is likely a violent criminal...." Much better.

Guess so. But at least in all those other countries, the likelihood of the intruder having a gun is slim to none.

[Coito ergo sum]

Which are "those" countries? A few western European countries, Canada and Australia?

But - How many intruders do you think you could fend off, if neither of you had a gun?

Despite the handguns ban imposed under the 1997 Firearms Amendment, research carried out following the implementation of the Act saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of gun crime incidents in the UK.

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd much rather be a nut than an impotent lamb.
You know what? That is MY choice to make regardless.

Shame those are the only two options.

I know, right?! It's either yes or no, love it or hate it, black or white, all or none! There can be no middle ground!

Siege mentality. "Go to the walls!" whenever they don't want to be reasonable.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are extreme positions on both sides. We have the pro-gun folks who will reject any regulation no matter what, and then we have the anti-gun folks who think that almost all guns should be banned, with the possible exceptions of a few guns which would be able to be owned by a few people.

Anyone whose argument is typically peppered with namecalling like "gun nut" tends to be among the non-compromising factions.

[Kristie]

There are extreme positions on both sides. We have the pro-gun folks who will reject any regulation no matter what, and then we have the anti-gun folks who think that almost all guns should be banned, with the possible exceptions of a few guns which would be able to be owned by a few people.

Anyone whose argument is typically peppered with namecalling like "gun nut" tends to be among the non-compromising factions.

Tends to be, but there are definitely exceptions. I believe Seth and GS are gun nuts, but I don't think all guns should be banned. I'm a fan of compromise. But, compromise isn't one side going 95% towards the other side.

[Tero]

Suppose we ban all hand guns. This will increase crime?