Guns

[John Dibble]

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

I see your point. Criminals are going to get the guns anyway, so to defend against those guns citizens should have the right to a stun gun/tranqulizer gun.  However it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The average person doesn't need a gun. However many people do. Some, particularly in alaska and the rocky mountains hunt to provide themselves with food. It is considered entertaining and serves a usefull purpose. Others need guns for different reasons. The logic is "would you attack someone knowing that they don't have a gun, or not knowing whether or not they have a gun." Yes the stun gun idea makes more sense, however it would never work in our society, a society with 10X the number of murders as nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan have.

Stun guns are not nearly as an effective measure of self defense as a handgun. You'll note that while police carry them around nowadays, they still carry their traditional firearms. The reasons they are not as good a defense as a firearm are numerous. Three deserve note.

First off, you only get a single shot - miss and you're screwed, get attacked by a group and not miss and you're still screwed(and when the guy gets up his buddies are gonna hold you while he does some rather nasty work on your face before slitting your throat). A pistol wins here, as it is normal for them to have at least six rounds - leaving you room for error or extra ammo for groups of attackers.

Second, there's a lack of stopping power - while normally effective, it may not stop your attacker, which you know a bullet to the head would. Once again, a gun wins.

The third is based on the second - fear factor. Stun guns are for the most part non-lethal. Guns usually are. You'll be happy to know that in the vast majority of cases where a gun is used for self-defense, a shot doesn't even need to be fired(and often in the case where it is, nobody is actually hit by a bullet) - the assailant will generally run away. And it is true that criminals are more afraid of armed victims than they are of the police.

Now, as far as tranquilizer guns go, you have the second problem at least. It looks like a gun enough not to have a third, and you can get multiple shots. But, as I said, it lacks stopping power - tranquilizer takes time to take effect, and on large suspects(who may be jacked up on who knows what kind of stimulant, painkiller, or whatever) it may take long enough for them to take your life. Of course, these can be lethal as well - too much tranquilizer will shut down the body.

So, given the above, I'd prefer a handgun for defense. Now, anyone who recognizes the need for self-defense but is just not comfortable with a gun still should get a stun gun or tranquilizer gun - they are inferior means, but they are better than nothing at all.

[John Dibble]

Communists are pro-gun too.

Until they come into power.

[John Dibble]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

[John Dibble]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

[John Dibble]

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

Someone bigger and/or stronger than me - equipped with a gun, knife, baseball bat, pipe, other melee, or even nothing at all - who wishes me harm. In case you haven't noticed, criminals prefer to prey on the weak - they either do so by preying on those of lesser power than they or by ganging up on their victims. A knife, or any melee weapon, is not likely to be an effective defense against such an opponent - what's to stop them from grabbing your wrist, thus preventing you from striking. Further, proficiency with melee weapons is not as easy to achieve as with a gun - takes a lot more training, which the average citizen may not have.

To put this in context, let me give you an example. A 120 lb. woman is walking home, a 200 lb. man confronts her and intends to rape then kill her. She has a knife. Do you really like her chances? Now look at the same situation, but the woman has a gun. How have her chances changed?

EDIT: To further prove my point

[John Dibble]

Yes guns are probablly better for self-defense against a 300 pound guy. I don't see why you need an assault weapon to do it but I get your point. I still don't think guns are "good". If we lived in a highly civilized world we wouldn't need them.....outside of hunting (which i have absolutely no problem with if you use the animal for food/ect.). It makes sense to me why firearms are necessary for a society in todays world - I'll never argue that they aren't - however murder is never good - and guns are built for the sole purpose of killing (whether self defense, anger, aggression, or greed).

"Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.

Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?

His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral." - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

"If all people were righteous no one would need to be brave." - Angesilaus II

Basically, I view guns as an unfortunate necessity. There are evil people in the world, and usually such people can only be deterred with force. Now, I'll admit assault weapons generally are not practical for self-defense(moreso for home defense, or in the possibility that your country is invaded), but I still think that honest citizens should be able to purchase them(it'd be fine if they had to keep them in the house, though, just so long as they could attain them).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, of course I've debated this on a number of occassions. Now, I think the reasons for higher crime rates are numerous, but not much to do with guns. For instance, Switzerland hands out machine guns, and they've got the lowest crime rate on the planet. Also, statistics show that when legal gun ownership increases, crime decreases - especially with concealed carry. Kennesaw, Georgia actually requires homeowners to have a handgun(with exceptions) and regardless of increasing population they have maintained a crime rate that is around 1/10 of what it was before the law was enacted. Criminals above all fear an armed victim retaliating, as they do value their own lives, so the statistics are consistent with that logic. Also, gun ownership is at a record high, and has been increasing over the last couple decades, but violent crime has greatly decreased.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

What I'd be more likely to blame the higher crime rate on is differences in economic conditions, demographics, climate(higher temperature is shown to cause increased irritability and aggression, and the crime rate goes accordingly during summer/winter), culture, and various other conditions that are different in different countries.

[John Dibble]

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following. It must be noted that the bailiff was a woman. Nothing against women in the police force and such, but those in a position where large, strong male suspects may need to be detained should be physically strong enough to do so. That was not the case here. Now, the guns in court could be argued either way, but that also needs to be a considered factor in this kind of case before leaping to a universal conclusion.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001765.htm for more opinions on that.

Also, there are devices nowadays that could have been used to prevent such a thing. A proper holster could have prevented it. Or, alternatively, bailiffs could use 'smart guns' which require some sort of magnetic or electronic transmission ring or bracelet that allows only the legal owner of the gun to actually fire it(though some people complain about possible failure of these).

Now, I also want to note I never claimed guns to be a universal defense - nothing is foolproof. I only claim that for self-defense, they are the best method practically available.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember, defenders can create weapons of death for defense. Many weapons are developed for that reason - protecting the lives of those the makers value. Now, like any tool, guns can be used by good or evil forces. Remember though, if there were no evil people in the world, guns would be pretty much unnecessary in today's society. Fact is though, there are evil people, and when push comes to shove I'd rather that decent people be able to defend themselves against evil. Your life should be held in higher regard than that of someone who does not value life - so you should do everything you can to fight for it, and that includes using a gun. At least get a stun-gun, and a tazer for if that fails, Rutzay - it's better than your bare hands, and neither were made for killing.

Also, I must remind you that in the majority of cases where a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is not even fired - the criminal will run away. If a shot is fired, it is usual still that the criminal is not harmed - it's a miss or a warning and the criminal will run.

[John Dibble]

We also need tougher penalty's for offenders who use guns to commit crimes

At least we agree here. The Libertarian Party's position on this is that those who commit crimes with guns and those whose negligence with their guns causes harm should be severely punished.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

[John Dibble]

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

I think I'll take my chances with nothing but my bare hands or a the baseball bat under my bed.

Your choice. At least you've got a bat. At least for home defese get a dog - criminals don't like dealing with them, even small ones. And do yourself another self-protection favor by avoiding trouble areas and situations in the first place.

[John Dibble]

We don't have many troubel areas here in Iowa City, but I'll try. I think I'm pretty safe in my dorm room. We watch each other's backs on my floor. I was just kidding about the bat. However, if someone does get into the dorms somehow and into my room, I could always wack them with my laptop.

WHAT!? NO! YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING TO DEFEND YOUR COMPUTER! LIFE IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT IT!