Controversial Topic: Weapon Ownage How do you feel?

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

Controversial Topic: Weapon Ownage

Recently i had to do a speech for my school, and one of the topics i thought about doing my speech on was personal weapon ownage. I changed my mind because i found a different topic to be much more interesting, but i figured i could start a topic about it here on Xisto to find out what your opinion is on the subject.

I personally think that personal gun ownage should be allowed and no laws made against it.

I think this because in today's day in age there are idiots who go around robbing houses, and kidnapping people right from the saftey of our own home. So i think that one needs to have the ability of safley protecting yourself in the sanctuary of your own home even if the means of doing it are by deadly weapon.

Put yourself in the position of a father of a 6 year old daughter and a 16 year old son and all you want to do is be able to protect them. But one day the 14 year old son goes to a friends house and comes home kinda late at night like maybe 9-10 o-clock and the dad has no idea what time his son was coming home all he hears is the door open and close while he is laying in bed, he calls the sons name but no response from the son then you hear the laughter of the daughter in the front room but you think it is a scream followed by sudden silence.

What would you think?

Personally i would have thought that someone broke in and silenced my daughter and was trying to rob the house or something, so how would i protect myself effectively? a baseball bat? i doubt that someone would be afraid of a baseball bat because the most it can do in a couple blows is break a few bones unless the swinger hits in the right places, which is unlikely. and since they aren't too afraid of it, they would probably attempt to disarm you, which would not be hard to do since it's a baseball bat. So instead of a baseball bat, you have a gun pointed at him, the chances are you can get a shot off in their arm before they even get a chance to run towards you and disarm you. working much more effectively at protecting yourself from being hurt and possibly killed.

The reason i provided you with the anecdote is because that has happened to me before, i came home and snuck up behind my sis and scared her and my dad apparently called my name and i didn't hear, so i didn't respond, and since i didn't respond, he said i was lucky he didn't come down the hall with a gun because he had thought someone was breaking in.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Someone in my class did their speech on this, and they suggested that only jobs that require guns like a police officer, security, military etc... should be allowed to legally have guns during their job and only their job. She suggested other things like a baseball bat, or a dog. I don't think that either would be effective. What do you think?

So How do you feel about personal gun ownage? DO you think there should be laws against owing a gun for personal security?
Edited April 11, 2007 by Albus Dumbledore (see edit history)

[Plenoptic 0]

On the note of baseball bats, people will be afraid of it unless they can defend themselves from it which if they are a robber they may know how to do. Some person with their adrenaline going coming at you swinging it might get you a little worried. But if there is no gun law they are fighting a hopeless fight.Despite that statement though, I do think guns should be allowed to be owned. With laws against it, the people breaking into your home will still use them. Why? Because they are breaking the law anyway and for them it's the best protection. So then when you do bring up that baseball bat they can just shoot you and you are out of their way. The only people who should be allowed to have a gun are those with a clean criminal record though and I think that's how it is now but they still carry them. That's the way I see it anyway. If people are gonna come at you with guns, law or not, then you should be able to defend yourself. Sure there are alarm systems which do indeed help keep them out but you can't be too safe. Besides, you can't go hunting without a gun.

[farren 0]

I'm unsure on this. Some good points mentioned but it's difficult to tell if this would be for the better. I think it's good for people to know that they can fell safe if they have a weapon for defence. However, i'm not sure I would feel safe knowing that anyone i pass on the street could have a weapon with them at that time.

 

Personaly, i'm against the idea for this reason:

 

I think this because in today's day in age there are idiots who go around robbing houses, and kidnapping people right from the saftey of our own home.

I feel people would take advantage of this law and abuse it in a way to harm others. By saying that anyone could possess a weapon such as a gun, you may have the problem of young kids being influenced with these weapons and the act of violence justified as a primary solution rather than a last resort. There are other ways around it (i.e. better law enforcement or better detecting technology). Also these "idiots" might become more widespread rather than in certain areas. Edited April 11, 2007 by farren (see edit history)

[richierich1m 0]

yes you are right when you say everyone need guns to protect themselves from robberies and kinapping and such other stuff,but would nt it make easy for the lawbreakers to get access to gun and such other stuff because everyone is able to get it easily,if more guns are mad available it would lead to more voilence let me explain my point suppose there are two people ar4e fighting and if they have guns in a fit of rage they may even shoot each other ,but if they dont have gyn they may break each others bones but atleast wont kill each other and hence it would make sure there is less voilence in the country

[salamangkero 0]

Personally, I would want every person to have some means to protect one's self. Guns score pretty high on that list because bare fists, boots or baseball bats are melee (unless you threw your boots, which is kinda pointless) while projectile weapons like arrows, shuriken and grenades can be hard to use. Guns, however, are comparatively easy to use. You just point and click, err, fire.However, this ease is also what worries me. After all, even if we had laws permitting only reasonable, tax-paying citizen with no criminal records to own a gun, we can never be sure what there people can do under drunken rage. Another thing is that we can't expect them to keep their guns at home all the time. Some of them may think, "I might get ambushed in the parking lot or mugged at an alley. I need a gun with me at all times." Now suppose this guy (or gal) enters a bar and downs a drink or eight. The merest of all assaults, such as shoulders bumping, could very well trigger a massacre.Also, it'd be a whole lot easier for criminal elements to acquire guns. They'd just have a front guy getting their stuff for them while they strut 'round, burgling houses and, possibly, acquiring more firearms.It is of my opinion, then, that people, which is to say, law-abiding citizens, should find other alternative means to protect themselves. Guns are quite easy to use but they're also easy to misuse. I was thinking of tranquilizer darts but that could also be used for criminal activities. So in the end, my vote goes to the classic melee weapons. Mmmm... knives, arnis sticks, quarterstaves.Besides, isn't it much more fun to bludgeon a burglar when you can feel the hits really hitting?

[farren 0]

Also something i forgot to mention.What if someone i knew starting annoying the hell out of me so i decide to shoot and kill him? With this law in place couldn't i just "claim" to have used it in self defence when in fact it was down to cold blood?

[Watermonkey 0]

She suggested other things like a baseball bat, or a dog. I don't think that either would be effective. What do you think?
So How do you feel about personal gun ownage? DO you think there should be laws against owing a gun for personal security?

(First, it's "gun ownership". "Ownage" is not a word.)

I would tell her to bring her pepper spray and baseball bat to a gun fight. Tell her if her rules are good enough for everyone else, they should be good enough for her. People of her ilk, though, never follow the same rules they've created for everyone else. Just look at your state Rep. Feinstein. All her bodyguards carry full auto firearms. Of course the regular person (peasant) can't afford personal bodyguards, and if you're in places like NYC where in-kind self defense is banned, you're a sitting duck for any criminal to do with as he pleases. Every animal has the ability to defend themselves against attack from other animals, but people have somehow devolved into thinking they're above all that. That's just the sort of thinking that makes for good slaves that don't question the illegal IRS or the illegal war on drugs, terror, or any other "war" our masters have declared in order to save just one child. Yeah, I think you should be able to demonstrate safe handling of a firearm before being able to carry it concealed in public, but the second amendment doesn't impart that restriction. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means any arms, according to the intent, well documented, of the framers of the constitution, that are similar to what the army carries in their defense of our nation. That includes muffled or big bore (or both) firearms like the .50 BMG that's been recently outlawed in the state of CA. When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them, leaving the law abiding defenseless sheep.
Edited April 12, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

The only people who should be allowed to have a gun are those with a clean criminal record though and I think that's how it is now but they still carry them.

I agree with that, If you want to legally have a gun in california, you must have it registered so if a murder ever comes up and matches you guns, they can match it but to get that liscense you need to take a shooting class and get background checked etc... which i think is fine.

However, i'm not sure I would feel safe knowing that anyone i pass on the street could have a weapon with them at that time.

If i am understanding you correctly, you understand my topic to allow people who are walking around in the streets to cary guns for saftey in the streets, this is not what i ment, i ment to have a gun, that is locked up in a safe in a house and to be used only to protect that house not to be carried around the streets in case something might happen there, there are things like pepper spray for that, and besides, you are in public chances are the criminal would be too scared to attack at all.

@richierich1m

Like i said earlyer, i don't think they should be allwed to walk around with them on the streets, and even if people are allowed to hold guns in their own home to protect their home, it still wont stop wanna-b-gangsters from buying the guns illegally and using them.

@salamangkero

if they take their gun out in public and shoot someone with it because they get jumped then i think the people doing the jumping should go free and the person who shot them should be put in jail for taking it out in public, because the whole concern about this is for protecting your home and your family in the saftey of you own home, but out in public is a whole nother story. theres pepper spray and you are in public.

@farren again

well then that person is an idiot and shouldn't have been given the gun. There would of course be investigation which would then show that there was no forced entry, and no means of the dead person to attack the person with the gun then obviously it would prove that the person shot him in cold blood and not for protection.

@ watermonkey

i don't need you to tell me how to talk, thanks

[Forbez 0]

If you own a gun you are more likely to use it, then someone who doesn't. Thats just common sense. If there were no guns, alot of things would be around. There probably would be no war, less crime and loads more of the bad stuff. The gun is one of the greatest inventions ever. The gun is a perfect extention for the human. It fits perfectly. The gun can be used for protection. Having a gun makes you feel impowered. If anything happens, you can always turn to your gun. I don't think gun should be sold legally, that only supplies more guns for everyone. If two people both have guns, someone is gonna get hurt. Specially as none of them probably wouldn't of been trained with a gun. Guns should stay away from petty crime. Everyday people should not be walking around with guns.

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

If you own a gun you are more likely to use it, then someone who doesn't. Thats just common sense. If there were no guns, alot of things would be around. There probably would be no war, less crime and loads more of the bad stuff. The gun is one of the greatest inventions ever. The gun is a perfect extention for the human. It fits perfectly. The gun can be used for protection. Having a gun makes you feel impowered. If anything happens, you can always turn to your gun.
I don't think gun should be sold legally, that only supplies more guns for everyone. If two people both have guns, someone is gonna get hurt. Specially as none of them probably wouldn't of been trained with a gun. Guns should stay away from petty crime. Everyday people should not be walking around with guns.

like i said before, i am not saying people should walk around with guns in their belts daily. i am talking about just protecting your home! having a gun, locked up in a safe, bolted to the ground with a combination the adults in the house know to get to the safe so they can get to a gun.

[Watermonkey 0]

like i said before, i am not saying people should walk around with guns in their belts daily. i am talking about just protecting your home! having a gun, locked up in a safe, bolted to the ground with a combination the adults in the house know to get to the safe so they can get to a gun.

So what you're saying is, if I've got an intruder, I'm supposed to ask the intruder nicely to just wait for a few seconds while I open this safe, take out my gun in the dark, load it, and then I'll deal with him? That's the stupidest thing I can think of. By the time you're half way into unlocking the safe, the intruder will be pointing his gun at you waiting to take yours once you get the thing open. Now you've got no gun and the intruder can still have his way with you and your family. Where's the sense in that?
According to the Xisto rules:

Languages (warning): All posts made must be written in decent English. This means you will at least try to write grammatically correct sentences and be a little careful at what you're trying to say. We're not all psychic, so if you want to make something clear, do it the right way. Should a post be made in another language, you should at least add an English translation to it.

Now I tried, nicely, to give you some advice on using a word that doesn't exist, and you specifically tell me you don't need me to tell you how to talk, even though I was actually telling you how to write. Since you don't need my advice with that, next time I see something that's not "decent English", I'll just report you and the Mods or Admin will tell you to clean up your act. Thanks.
Edited May 2, 2007 by Watermonkey (see edit history)

[FolkRockFan 0]

The Second Amendment gives the *individual* the right to keep and bear arms. The "militia" is not, in fact, the National Guard (which was not even in existence - or anywhere close to being born - when the amendment was written).I live in Texas. Texans can carry concealed handguns in most public places. Um, most. School zones, for example, are forbidden. I'm all for it. I'm also all for home defense with whatever firearm the homeowner finds to be the most comfortable and effective. Robert Heinlein once said that "an armed society is a polite society." Yeah - good point. Few criminals will risk breaking in to an occupied home if they are fairly certain that the homeowner has a 12-gauge at the ready for such possibilities. Some will because they're stupid (or perhaps high)...but they quickly wise (and sober) up when confronted with the reality of the situation (that reality being that they are just a few inches away from no longer being able to commit crimes).If we outlawed guns, we would still have war, criminal activity and other nasty things. The criminals would have guns because they obviously don't care about following any "you can't have guns" laws. So...taking away the firearms only gives the criminals - the bad guys, remember? - an advantage. The rest of us would be left to defend ourselves with knives, pepper spray and other weapons...weapons that are, sadly, inferior when put up against a .45 semi-auto with a full clip.Besides: the guns themselves aren't problems. Load one and leave it on the coffee table. Unless you mess with it, it'll just sit there...harmlessly, even. The person who pulls the trigger is the good or the evil, depending on what s/he is doing (there's a difference between staging a drive-by shooting and shooting somebody who has just broken into one's house at two in the morning).

[jlhaslip 4]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you consider the historical situation at the time this was written, the United States of America was in its infancy, with little if any Armed Forces, and they depended on the Local citizenry for its defense of Country and therefore, the "Militia" were working people with day jobs. The majority of people I know consider that this line is written so that these Local citizens were able to be armed so as to act in the defense of their Country. I doubt the people who wrote this into the Constitution, or whatever document it exists in, (I am not American so I don't know where to find it), considered the need for individual citizens to take the Law into their own hands simply by virtue of their being able to afford to purchase a firearm.

And as to the right to bare arms, I wear short sleeved shirts, too...

[Albus Dumbledore 0]

So what you're saying is, if I've got an intruder, I'm supposed to ask the intruder nicely to just wait for a few seconds while I open this safe, take out my gun in the dark, load it, and then I'll deal with him?

No, i am saying that if you were to hear a glass break in your house and you were in the room, you would have enough time to grab the gun and go to the location of the breakage and investigate the source of the noise.

And as to the right to bare arms, I wear short sleeved shirts, too... laugh.gif

ROFL nice on haslip!

@watermonkey, let me be the adult and take this argument out of the forums; see the PM
Edited April 12, 2007 by Albus Dumbledore (see edit history)

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well put it like this, look at the guns that American gun companies make these days, they are all high powered and what not. I don't mind protecting yourself, but does a person need a saw off shotgun or a sub machine gun to do it heck even a 50 cal sniper rifle is a bit extreme to protect yourself from someone robbing you. That why you have self defense class and the advantage that you know the layout of your house better then the robber. In which I agree with salamangkero that you should find alternate means to defend yourself. Heck if you kick a guy in the groin he will go down, no matter how tough he it will hurt. Haslip is correct that the second amendment was for the town militas, during the revolutionary war so if the british attach the colonists could fight back and what not. Of course that why the second amendment as stayed intact for so long so people can defend themselves from other attackers in the sense that if another country attacked and not just individual people. But of course in today's world you can't walk around byyourself without protection because people don't care who you are as long as you give them what they want.Of course we spit facts and figures all day, butwhat it really comes down to it once people bypass the fact they are going to kill someone so they can get a few dollars for drugs or whatever, they won't stop and in order to stop them you have to start with the tools.