Rolled Out On: 9/10/2007 1:44 PM

And you just hit on one of the primary fallacies in "gun control" advocates' arguments... and the one that they will never, ever acknowledge. In the end, a firearm does not change the situation. A person is either going to be peaceful, or they are going to be violent. If they are peaceful, then there is no problem. If they are violent, then they deserve to be removed from society, and there is no problem.

But, like I said, hoplophobes will never admit that, since it is obviously the firearm causing the crime.

Rolled Out On: 9/10/2007 1:58 PM

I'm actually going to disagree with you there, but only on semantics.

I am a person capable of violence. I shy away from it at all costs, but put my back up against a wall and the teeth and fangs will come out. My ability to be violent when needed but peaceful at all other times is what makes me civilized.

Cops can be violent when confronting criminals. Women can be violent when protecting their children. It's not the violence, but those who use violence against the innocent.

Rolled Out On: 9/11/2007 7:34 AM

Ok, yeah, I did phrase that poorly/unclearly. The unspoken assumption I had embedded in there was "under normal circumstances". Defense of life/family situations call for abnormal (at least, hopefully) reactions, and cannot really be compared to every-day existence.

I should have better expressed that, though, and thanks for clearing it up.

Rolled Out On: 9/11/2007 3:33 PM

As much as I hate speaking up for the bullies:
Accidents. Children and stupid irresponsible adults.

Surely you've met somebody who you don't think would intentionally shoot you, but whom you wouldn't want handling your gun? Somebody you wouldn't take to the range to teach them about target shooting or gun safety because you'd fear for your safety?

Rolled Out On: 9/11/2007 3:43 PM

Dustydog, I've met more people who shouldn't own a car. Yet, they have more access to a much deadlier, accident prone system than a gun and regularly get in it, putting hundreds, if not thousands of other's lives at risk every day.

Children? Well, we talk to our kids about drugs. We talk to them about not getting in the car with strangers. We explain to them to look both ways before crossing the street. We give them swim lessons. And I talk to my little girls about not playing with guns. My oldest can't wait to go the range with me, but knows better than to ever touch Daddy's guns without me being there.

You appear to be asking for a life free from risk of accidents. Good luck with that. Even if you live your life in a bubble, you could trip on an oxygen line and break your neck.

I won't let anyone handle my firearm unless I have personally unloaded it and handed it to them with the action open and as soon as I hand it to them they check it for themselves. If I hand it to them and they don't check, I take it back.

And as for the range, unless you do it intentionally, it's pretty damned hard to shoot someone at a range by accident. So, no, there's nobody I know of I wouldn't trust in a range. In fact, if I don't think you're trustworthy with a firearm, I make an effort to get you to go with me to learn.

Rolled Out On: 9/11/2007 8:24 PM

I believe guns are dangerous no matter where they are, troubles might rise from a child involved in an accident to a person having a sudden "want" or a "need" as you all it. I think anyone should own a gun if they want, in fact in my case it would be a useful tool.

I live in Venezuela, where I have been victim of organized crime 4 times this sole year, my car was stolen twice and I even was robed once outside the biggest bank in my city with a gun on my face in front on everyone, even the security detail of the bank itself. It is not a pretty picture to see so many deaths in the papers everyday, for god's sake, we are NOT AT WAR in Venezuela, but still I have a big impulse to own a gun and defend myself.

As long as man walks the earth, there will be "needs" and "wants" and all the consequences they carry. Most Animals kill by instinct or need or even by accident, while the human being have all sort of aditional ulterior motives to do so. I've also learned in my 29 years of life that there is bad people in this world, I mean people with truly bad intentions.

Rolled Out On: 9/11/2007 8:30 PM

Venezolano, yes there is a danger when handling a firearm just like there's a danger when handling a saw or a power tool. There's a danger from having a pool at your house and a danger from having a stove. Danger is in everything we own if it is misused.

But, like you said, having a gun means you can direct its "danger" towards people who would harm you. Just like the power saw's usefulness outweighs the possible dangers, so can a firearm.

Man is a wild beast no matter how "civilized" we want ourselves to be. It is folly (as you can see) to expect the best out of everyone.

I really hope for the best for you. You shouldn't live in fear all your life and your government has no right to ask you to remain defenseless. You have the right to protect yourself and even your government cannot take that away from you.

God bless, and stay safe!

Rolled Out On: 9/12/2007 9:04 AM

Rolled out,
I'm not disagreeing with you, but you're moving the goal posts.

"In a totally peaceful world, what would be the harm if every single person carried a gun? ... 100% non violent people could carry guns and there would be no threat, right? It is irrational to think otherwise."

There is a huge and pragmatic difference between absolute safety and reasonable risk. Your original post speaks to a standard of no harm, and your comments speak to a standard of reasonable risk.

Rolled Out On: 9/12/2007 9:09 AM

Good catch. You are correct and it does appear I moved the goal posts. Thank you for bringing that up. I stand corrected.

There could be accidents from mishandling of firearms and that could cause harm.

My point was to illustrate that peaceful people could own firearms and not be a threat to others in the sense that they would not use the firearm against them intentionally.