firearms

lampliter · Jan 3, 2012

A gun is an inanimate object. It's the person holding it that makes the choice. Before I was allowed to carry a gun I had to take and pass a 521 question psychological(sp) profile test---among other tests. I believe the same test should be given and passed to obtain a drivers liscense. A vehicle is also an inanimate object. To me the following is scarier than a gun---An over caffeinated drunk in an Escalade---texting.

Stillwater · Jan 3, 2012

Debate? No, sir. A debate implies a "winner" or, in a discourse such as this, a compelling argument to sway the opinion of the audience. In this case, I have no such agenda. This is only to serve as a counterpoint to a biased, slanted essay that harvested only specific facts to support an emotional opinion rather than facts driving a result. This is the domain of evangelists, not science. We'll have to agree to disagree that the analogies of drunk driving & rape do not pertain - certainly not intended as redirection - but a comparison to show the ludicrous nature of a neutral tool (whether a gun, an automobile or a penis) that can be used to positive result can also be misused to a negative one depending on the nature, education and morale fiber of the user. Removing neutral tools to illicit a desired behavior has never been a positive move and is one, further, that an independent, free-thinking, intelligent group should never subscribe too. Behavior should be modified thru education and social support, not through constraints to freedom, civil and personal safety. Life - and evolution, if you subscribe to such... certainly progress - has always been in the hands of those who take risks for positive reward. Living life in a clean little aquarium is neither rewarding, in my view, nor life worth living. I'm sitting across from a fifty-gallon aquarium. I enjoy watching those fish but I certainly wouldn't want to live in that safe little box, depending on others for my sustenance, safety and being removed from all possibility of making an independent decision. You're right. I don't think guns are bad. I think the need for them is bad as demanded by the reaction of violence against those too weak to defend themselves without the need for firearms. I think criminals are bad. I think people who resort to force to coerce others, rather than sound reasonable argument, are bad: whether political or personal. When those people are changed and criminal intent eliminated from the human condition, then firearms for personal, civil and state protection become the archival relics of historians & collectors. That is what I challenge of you and society. I sincerely wish you luck. That may ten year old daughter may never be attacked or raped. That my seven year old son, who is on the autism spectrum, may never be harmed. I would be intensely happy for a world where humans never attack & intimidate others via force. Once that happens, then the carry of a firearm for personal protection becomes as moot as the need to carry jars of leeches for medicinal purposes. Until the desire for the criminal strong to use violence against the lawful weak has been eliminated, then the desire to reduce the ability for the lawful weak to defend themselves with any equalizing tool against the aggressor - well, that desire is sadly nearsighted: juvenile at best and criminally evil at worst. Again: "But much of the controversy over how guns are used overlooks an even more basic issue. And that is that you cannot credit a disease for its own partial cure. Even if Kleck could prove that guns were used in 100 million cases of self-defense each year, that still would not prove that guns have social utility, as long as they still drive up the murder rate." The idea that the author details above is frightening to me. That anyone could really justify a statement like that is truly irrational. "As for the " funny math", those numbers were not supposed to add up in that manner. I believe the author was distinguishing handgun from long guns(firearms), though I could be mistaken." Many of those numbers don't "add up." They were cherry picked from reports gathered from many different years with, as the example I posted, you being left to guess at to what the author meant since it is apparent that he/she was willing to post the total to color the numbers but also willing to excise part of the components to suit his/her predetermined goal. See: evangelist. "If you have different statistics, I'd appreciate your posting them." I already did. I used public documents - not party-agenda "think tanks" to draw raw figures from - and posted the links. I used one year (2009) and one State (Oregon.)  I didn't *know* what I would find but I expected it, honestly. I applaud, in your last post, your taking the initiative to look up and find answers yourself rather than the just the single, biased webpage of the agenda driven essayist. A gun is a tool. A car is a tool. A drug is a tool. A pen is a tool. A computer is a tool. The internet is a tool. No redirection... simple facts. All can be used for good in an illegal manner. All can be used for criminal activities. Negating any good a tool (firearm) may be used for and supporting the cause that the potential for misuse should result in elimination of that tool... Man, I don't want to live in that kind of Big Brother society. Freedom, baby. Finally - maybe I should emphasize this again - the author uses poor statistics to create emotional, dramatic statements like "an otherwise law abiding gun owner is 19 times more likely to use their firearm in an illegal act of violence than in using it for an act of self defense." Again, this terribly constructed conclusion is disingenuous at best. The use of a firearm for "self-defense" is not an available, quantifiable value. A death, documented or otherwise, need not occur for a self-defense firearm to be have been used as a tool to discourage violence to self or others. I cannot provide those numbers. Neither can the essayist, though the difference is I won't lie about them and attempt to frighten people thru deception. He/she made her agenda clear: "Even if..  ..could prove that guns were used in 100 million cases of self-defense each year, that still would not prove that guns have social utility, as long as they still drive up the murder rate." They would negate whatever and how much positive impact a tool may have if it can be misused even once. That is irrational emotion - not a reasonable argument.

Stillwater · Jan 3, 2012

ped said:
On a serious note I think everyone understands any weapon, in particular one that has no other practical use, is an inanimate object. It's human irrationaly, self-interest, fear, natural suspicion and need for control and dominate (instill conformity) that is the issue. I mean it does no good to make strawman arguements if you'r going to be serious in a debate. It's wether or not people want to live in a society where anyone can easily and efficiently kill at whim if so desired. So it comes down to what creates a better society everyone being armed or no one. People can kill without a gun but then again a gun makes it much easier to do and much harder to defend against. But a gun is much more useful in self-defense at the same time. But then again is it rational to trust other humans to be sufficiently in control of themselves at all times even if their original intent was purely defense, etc, etc. The whole argument is essentially a paradox. (which is why it's so politically useful)

Agreed. Chicken or the egg. I'm convinced that until you modify human nature through social progress & education - that as long as the strong criminally victimize the weak - that to remove the tools to allow the weak to equalize themselves against the stronger... that is wrong. As long as people are willing to exercise criminal, forceful intimidation through physical violence, the thing that keeps everything from breaking down into anarchy and the rule of the strong, not the law-abiding, is the forceful persuasion and deterrence through threat of harm & incarceration. Criminal: If I attempt to break into that house, I may be shot/killed by owner (and or go to jail if I cannot overpower/kill them.) Criminal: I'm not going to attempt to rape that woman because, thought I'm much physically stronger and could easily subdue her, she might be carrying a gun and kill me. (Incarceration? Well, if I murder her after the rape, then no one is there to identify me.) Perfect world? No one uses criminal force against another. Semi-perfect? Only the necessary amount of force is allowed to an individual so that all individuals are equal and the application of force for coercion is nullified. Primitive world? The strong have the advantage and, if criminally minded, take what they want from others: freedom, goods, sex, & life. No thanks... I need to go carve a spear and roast the end in a fire. I go out of my way to treat all strangers, acquaintances & friends with respect. That, being paired with being physically healthy, 6'3" and 225 lbs., gets me the latitude I need to avoid nearly all physical conflict. The respect being far more effective than purely my size & stamina. Still, with children & wife in company... or criminals acting in concert. An equalizing firearm is a good backup tool in my life. I can wander and go about my life with the confidence and awareness that I've limited my personal and family's risk. For a man to sit in a legislative house - or an academic on a safe campus - to tell the elderly woman in the projects that she should just hope that respect and criminal goodwill keeps her from being victimized and murdered - that the 20 yr old waitress who walks to her car at 2am should depend on the criminal restraint of the drunken rapist (she was wearing a skirt, alone at 2am? She was asking for it): that's criminal in and of itself.

Stillwater · Jan 3, 2012

ped said:
  Have you put much effort into studying human behaviour and the role of governments? you are literally advocating child brainwashing for a given goal of social behavioural conduct. Who's going to do this "educating?" The government?

OMG, sir you misunderstand me. I apologize for not making my point more clearly... I would NEVER suggest, nor was I, "child brainwashing" nor governmental behavior modification. I was alluding the same type of social progress we've seen in the last 100 years toward gender equality... toward intolerance of racism.. toward religious freedom - whether religious choice or the choice of freedom from religion.

Societies, even hunter-gatherers are one giant mammalian choice between security and liberty.

True. Societal members band together for mutual security & aid but compromise at some liberties to ensure community cohesion. Not entirely sure what point you are making but it doesn't negate the freedom each member of society should be allowed from members both within and outside that community. When each member can be assured that no other member would use overpowering force to criminally coerce them against their will, then a balance has been struck. We're not there yet.

If you were to ask those fish what the most obvious thing in their environment is do you think they would say water?

My Golden Retriever, Monty, with his nose shoved to the glass. Maybe the little tiki hut. I also had waffles for breakfast. I say this with no sarcasm or malice... what are you trying to say?

Journeyman · Jan 3, 2012

The entire idea is to decrease the number of deaths by firearms (or guns). The only problem with this is the short-sightedness of the people who want to do this. In all of human history mankind has always found a way to kill each other by any means available, AND WE ALWAYS WILL. It is the nature of all predator species to eliminate all those who threaten their territory, whether that is a physical territory or a psychological one. This will not change as long as we are predators, which will never change, because in the natural world, if you aren't a predator, you will become PREY. <div> <div>The entire concept and attempt to make guns illegal is a ploy by those politicians who use the fear of the average American as a means to get votes. Every politician knows that they will never get the law passed, for two reasons. The first, and probably least thought about by them, is that it is utterly unconstitutional and would be a certain death sentence to their future career. Secondly, and the most important reason, is that they are often hunters themselves and most of them receive huge campain contributions from the NRA and gun owners everywhere, including the criminals who use and sell them, make them illegal and the gun manufactures lose Billions (in Carl Sagan's voice)</div></div><div> </div><div>It's just not going to happen. Soooooo... But worry, be happy, you get to keep your guns and can get more.</div><div> </div>

Journeyman · Jan 4, 2012

The question I have is how we can carry guns across state lines? This is illegal as far as I know. And i do intend on being able to protect myself on the road when I leave. So how can I do this without breaking the law? Am I missing something?<div> </div><div>Dennis</div><div> </div>

Stillwater · Jan 4, 2012

Off topic posts regarding the virtues of societal conformity and anarchy have been moved to an appropriate thread. https://vanlivingforum.com/post/Anarchy-Society-etc.-5646521 On-topic discussion of firearms is encouraged. As a reminder:

twokniveskatie said:
this thread is to discuss firearms....what we carry, what's on our wishlist, the pros and cons of carrying firearms for personal protection.<div> </div><div>i ask that this thread be reserved for the thoughtful sharing of information, ideas, and experiences. please be respectful of the great responsibility we have when we carry weapons, and that if called into necessity, we are discussing the possibility of taking a human life, a serious action under any circumstance. </div><div> </div><div> </div>

Stillwater · Jan 4, 2012

Journeyman said:
The question I have is how we can carry guns across state lines? This is illegal as far as I know. And i do intend on being able to protect myself on the road when I leave. So how can I do this without breaking the law? Am I missing something?<div> </div><div>Dennis</div><div> </div>

Dennis, there are Safe Passage laws that involve the carry of firearms across State lines. The easiest answer is to get a carry permit from your home State or one that issues a non-resident permit. I have an Indiana permit and a Utah Non-resident. Between the two, I am covered in something like 40-43 States. See: http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php

Seraphim · Jan 4, 2012

Debate? No, sir. A debate implies a "winner" or, in a discourse such as this, a compelling argument to sway the opinion of the audience. In this case, I have no such agenda. This is only to serve as a counterpoint to a biased, slanted essay that harvested only specific facts to support an emotional opinion rather than facts driving a result. This is the domain of evangelists, not science.

Correction noted.

Appreciate the thought out reply.

Stillwater · Jan 4, 2012

Thank you, sir. The feeling is mutual. I respect where you are coming from.

wilcofan · Jan 4, 2012

paddling man... wow, amazingly stated..

Journeyman · Jan 4, 2012

Thanks Paddling Man, you've eased my mind. Didn't want to be looking over my shoulder all the time.<div> </div><div>Dennis</div>

Stillwater · Jan 4, 2012

Journeyman- I'm an engineer, not an attorney. Please be certain you are familiar with the Federal laws governing Safe Passage. Google: safe passage interstate firearms

http://www.cjrpc.com/interstate_2.htm

VanTramp · Jan 5, 2012

All of what PM said....  <div> </div><div>Very well I might add!</div><div> </div><div>I will point out that the tragedy of the ranger being shot was in Washington State, not Oregon though. </div>

dragonflyinthesky · Jan 5, 2012

These gun topics can erupt here. I am putting this link in anyway about the young mother with the baby who shot and killed an intruder. <A href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605" target=_blank>http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605</A>

Stillwater · Jan 5, 2012

VanTramp said:
All of what PM said.... Ã‚Â Very well I might add! I will point out that the tragedy of the ranger being shot was in Washington State, not Oregon though.Ã‚Â

Crap! You're right, he was at Ranier! Sorry about that... ain't no way i'm going back for Washington statistics though. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle"> The last time was a drain enough for me. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/smile.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle">

Thanks, Van Tramp. I'm just a simple, humble quiet man trying to make it in what is sometimes a harsh, mean world. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle">

Seraphim · Jan 10, 2012

Diane

Good link. Someone kept their head and responded appropriately.

Seraphim · Jan 10, 2012

Not trying to stir up controversy, but here's a story we have that could have gone differently. The homeowner did nothing wrong that I can determine. He had, however, the opportunity to leave the house and call the police.

Again, not being argumentative, but just food for thought:

Intruder

Stillwater · Jan 10, 2012

Correct, legally he did nothing wrong. Ohio adopted Castle Doctrine in 2008.

<h5>Ohio</h5> Ohio's Senate Bill 184 (SB184) took effect September 9, 2008. This bill updated the Ohio Revised Code with sections pertaining to Castle Doctrine and other areas of the ORC that were known to be unclear.<a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#cite_note-26">[27]</a> ORC 2307.601: No duty to retreat in residence or vehicle. (A) As used in this section: (1) Ã¢Â€ÂœResidenceÃ¢Â€Â and Ã¢Â€ÂœvehicleÃ¢Â€Â have the same meanings as in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code. (2) Ã¢Â€ÂœTort actionÃ¢Â€Â has the same meaning as in section 2307.60 of the Revised Code. (B) For purposes of determining the potential liability of a person in a tort action related to the personÃ¢Â€Â™s use of force alleged to be in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the personÃ¢Â€Â™s residence, if the person lawfully is in that personÃ¢Â€Â™s residence, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that personÃ¢Â€Â™s residence, and, if the person lawfully is an occupant of that personÃ¢Â€Â™s vehicle or lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person, the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another. Effective Date: 2008 SB184 09-09-2008 ORC 2901.05: Burden of proof - reasonable doubt - self-defense. (B)(1) Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or vehicle occupied by the person using the defensive force. Effective Date: 11-01-1978; 2008 SB184 09-09-2008

Will he have to live with it the rest of his, likely short, life? Of course. Is he lucky - prior to the opportunity to retreat - that he wasn't injured by the mentally ill offender? Absolutely. My father is 77 years old, 6'3", 210, rides a Harley (not a trike) at least weekly and can benchpress his own weight with no issues. Were he out-of-his-mind he could do great harm and/or kill the vast majority of folks. (Watch out for old folks! <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle">) In some States the victim of home invasion has the obligation to attempt to retreat prior to the use of deadly force. Those laws are quickly changing as Castle Doctrine is being passed, State-by-State. My heart goes out to the family of the Alzheimer's assailant and to the shooter - who will have to live with this. If blame is to be assigned, I'm looking at the family / guardians of the Alzheimer's patient who acted too late to keep him from being a danger to himself and others. A tragedy all around.

Seraphim · Jan 10, 2012

Not assigning blame.

Yet, the situation could have ended differently had the homeowner called the police and waited for their arrival. I'm confident the HPD could have employed less- than- lethal techniques. A hypothetical, yes, but I think the odds would have been favorable for an outcome not so tragic. The homeowner will have to live with the results of his decision to pursue the intruder into the basement. He was well within the law that he did so. Will that give him comfort? *shrug* don't know.

There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. Sometimes one is preferable over the other.

I agree with your assessment of the intruder's guardians, if he had any. We were getting weekly calls from businesses and passer-bys reference one particular gentleman who was in the middle stages of Alzheimer's. I refused to take him home to an empty house ( he lived alone) and advised his kids they come and take responsibility for him or I'd contact adult services. Haven't heard a call on him for over a month, so maybe they resolved the issue.

Also dealing with a mother-in-law with stage 7 Alzheimer's. A cruel disease.

firearms

Help Support Van Living Forum:

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!