I'm with you, Mike. I was raised in a small, rural town and all the men in my family were hunters. There were always guns around and I was taught that a man should defend his family and home. When I was in my 20's I looked out the back window of my Chicago apartment and saw a cop cruiser and a bunch of activity in the back yard of the house across the alley from me. I walked over to see what was up and watched them dig a bullet out of the guy's garage. The guy was all amped up and bragging about how he had run off a would-be burgler with a single shot. Looking at the scenario he described, it dawned on me that if the shot had been even one degree to the side the bullet would have missed the garage and carried on across the alley, directly into my daughter's bedroom. That was a rude awakening to the reality, and potential consequences of the "right to bear arms." I moved my family rather than live around "dirty harry". I'm sure that there are many people out there who are properly trained and capable with firearms, but I fear the majority are not. I know a number of Chicago cops and one FBI agent, and not one of them has ever told me they like the idea of armed citizens helping them shoot the bad guys. Personally, I feel safest when there are no guns around. The other day I dropped my lead wheel hammer on my toe. Who know's what damage I might do with a gun!
Guns, pros and cons!
- Thread starter Al Wohlstrom
- Start date
I'm with you, Mike. I was raised in a small, rural town and all the men in my family were hunters. There were always guns around and I was taught that a man should defend his family and home. When I was in my 20's I looked out the back window of my Chicago apartment and saw a cop cruiser and a bunch of activity in the back yard of the house across the alley from me. I walked over to see what was up and watched them dig a bullet out of the guy's garage. The guy was all amped up and bragging about how he had run off a would-be burgler with a single shot. Looking at the scenario he described, it dawned on me that if the shot had been even one degree to the side the bullet would have missed the garage and carried on across the alley, directly into my daughter's bedroom. That was a rude awakening to the reality, and potential consequences of the "right to bear arms." I moved my family rather than live around "dirty harry". I'm sure that there are many people out there who are properly trained and capable with firearms, but I fear the majority are not. I know a number of Chicago cops and one FBI agent, and not one of them has ever told me they like the idea of armed citizens helping them shoot the bad guys. Personally, I feel safest when there are no guns around. The other day I dropped my lead wheel hammer on my toe. Who know's what damage I might do with a gun!
Daryl,
Thanks for the post you echo my views, and I believe those of the British Police force regarding armed citizens.
There have been a few high profile cases recently here in the UK were innocent youngsters have been killed by firearms.
I have yet to see one one mother of those children come out and say we should have more guns.
Perhaps as this forum is predominantly male we don't get a very balanced view.
If you want to own a gun fair enough but strict controls do need to be in place.
Last August Bank Holiday Mr Foster killed his wife and 15-year-old daughter before setting fire to their home at Maesbrook, near Oswestry, and killing himself.
It emerged at the inquest into the deaths that Christopher Foster had been suffering from depression and had mentioned suicidal thoughts to his GP.
T
his prompted Mid and North Shropshire coroner, John Ellery to recommend a closer link between the medical profession and the police, who issue gun licences.
In the last few days the British Medical Association (BMA) has said it is about to update its ethical guidance on firearms.
The Gun Control Network was set up after the Dunblane tragedy in 1996 when 16 children and an adult were shot by Thomas Hamilton. It campaigns for tighter controls on guns of all kinds.
Spokeswoman, Gill Marshall-Andrews described the new guidelines as "absolutely wonderful".
She said her concern was for the risk faced by the families of gun owners: "If an individual commits suicide, that is a matter for him, but if he is going to kill his family, it is a very different matter
After the inquest into the deaths, Christopher Foster's estranged brother, Andrew, spoke publicly about his relationship with his brother and the need for greater control over the issuing of gun licences.
He said he had done some research into the subject: "There are 27,000 licensed gun holders in West Mercia alone and 25% will be treated for depression.
"That means 6,500 gun holders are suffering from depression and yet there is no communication between doctors and the police for people who are feeling suicidal."
As you know, up until recently guns have been pretty much banned in Chicago for sometime, and they are still very hard to get legally. Would you feel any safer now than back then, now that we have these gun regulations in place?
The truth is, the cats out of the bag. And like it or not, the gun cat isn't going back in. The guns are here to stay. Especially since we have open boarders, and also because some of the meanest guns ever created can be made in even the worst conditions with basic tools. So even if you ban all guns, anyone who really wants one is going to have one.
I'm sorry that incident in Chicago scared you, but you never know what could have happened if dirty harry never scared off that guy.
+1 Daryl.
Why is it that some of the pro gun guys on this thread aren't prepared to give ANY ground in this debate. This is simply not a black and white issue. In the UK, there are bad guys with guns, but because they are reasonably heavily controlled, that number is VERY VERY small. Because of this our policemen can walk around without guns (apart form special armed response units), and I can take my (very good) chances that I'm not going to catch a stray bullet from some idiot who can buy a firearm at a jamboree and use it with no training whatsoever.
If you love your guns in the US, which is fair enough, then why not tighten up your gun control, link said control to medical records etc etc...
The ubiquity of the gun in the US simply lowers the bar to entry GUARANTEEING that a bad guy will always have a gun. This is not the case in the UK and other countries.
When I was burgled some months back, had I caught the burglar there is every chance that one of us was going to get hurt to some degree. If he had been carrying a gun, then there's every chance I would have been killed.
I, like some other guys on this thread (read my previous post) are trying to offer a degree of balance to the thread. I have no issue with you guys in the US owning guns as I have previously stated. I have also stated that I have learned something new in that cultural differences often dictate the crime / murder rate in a given country, and that the gun is not simply the only thing to blame.
However, to be given the "guns don't kill, people do" argument without looking at the consequences of poor gun control is to be one sided in this debate and that frankly reduces the debate to a pissing contest.
And that is a waste of our life.
Graham.
Chuck,
Apologies for my ignorance on US constitution. If the majority in the USA wanted to change that right could they do so or is it written in stone.
Regards
This is an interesting point, and one I've thought much about. The Constitution was written at a time when the US was essentially a remote outpost on the edge of civilization. People had a real need for firearms at the time. I have often wondered what the founding fathers would think of our current gun situation. There is no doubt that firearms have an entirely different place in current society. Would they have written the Constitution the same way? I wonder. I'm just glad they didn't guarantee every american the consitutional right to raise pigs!
Pat
Supporter
I think it depends on whether you feel a person has a right to defend themselves, their home and family or not and whether you feel a government or police force has the power to make such a defense unnecessary.
I spent 30 years in the Army where the doctrine is to engage an enemy at the greatest effective range possible. If someone breaks into my home the middle of the night, I don't want to try to reason, discuss, rationalize or befriend them. I have little desire to get into a knife fight or attempt to demonstrate my very dated martial arts or limited debating skills. And I must admit, I don't have the guts to greet them with a warm cup of cocoa. So I own a gun.
Ironically, I didn't buy it until last year (but that's a story for a different day).
My 2 cents is that I am for the right to have firearms and I own a few. +1 to the shotgun as a home defense weapon with the further advantage that even my old eyes can see well enough in the dark to nail an intruder if needed. I also agree that there should be some type of control over people who can carry consealed waepons. Currently in states where that is allowed, there is a certification process, but mostly it is training the operator in how to NOT shoot themselves.
The slippery slope of proponents of gun control is that ultimately it allows some bureaucrat to make the decision of who has that right to carry and use firearms, but that can lead to suppression of personal liberty should the State deside to overthrow the will of the people and exert control over the very people that elected the leadership. In the USA, we will not allow tyrany from anyone, especially our elected officials who have proven that they cannot be trusted. These people cannot manage a budget so what will they do with our liberties?
Most Americans will live with some risk with regards to firearms verses the risk of our country devolving like Venezuala under Chavez's leadership. If the Venezualians had free access to arms, maybe their liberties would not be subject to a dictator.
Garry
The slippery slope of proponents of gun control is that ultimately it allows some bureaucrat to make the decision of who has that right to carry and use firearms, but that can lead to suppression of personal liberty should the State deside to overthrow the will of the people and exert control over the very people that elected the leadership. In the USA, we will not allow tyrany from anyone, especially our elected officials who have proven that they cannot be trusted. These people cannot manage a budget so what will they do with our liberties?
Most Americans will live with some risk with regards to firearms verses the risk of our country devolving like Venezuala under Chavez's leadership. If the Venezualians had free access to arms, maybe their liberties would not be subject to a dictator.
Garry
There are many REASONS to be allowed to own a gun, but the reason that it is a right, under the U.S. constitution, of a non-felon U.S. citizen, has nothing to do with hunting or protecting ones family, and everything to do with the notion that the only way, ultimately, for a citizen to protect themself from a government that becomes corrupt is to ensure that the average citizen retains the tool that allows him/her to be on equal footing when it come to the capability of force.
From THAT viewpoint, we, the U.S. citizen, are already woefully behind in allowing this right to be infringed upon.
I mean really, what exactly do you think would happen if even a group of, say, 100,000 legally armed citizens showed up at the White House armed with 3 shot 12 guages, 4 shot hunting rifles, and 10 shot hand guns in their possesion, and threatening to unseat the then current leader of the U.S.?
They'd be up against helicopters, tanks, machine guns, explosives, and guys all wearing very effective body armor. All things that the U.S. government alone are allowed to posses at this point.
What the Founding Fathers had in mind? I don't think so, but what's YOUR opinion?
From THAT viewpoint, we, the U.S. citizen, are already woefully behind in allowing this right to be infringed upon.
I mean really, what exactly do you think would happen if even a group of, say, 100,000 legally armed citizens showed up at the White House armed with 3 shot 12 guages, 4 shot hunting rifles, and 10 shot hand guns in their possesion, and threatening to unseat the then current leader of the U.S.?
They'd be up against helicopters, tanks, machine guns, explosives, and guys all wearing very effective body armor. All things that the U.S. government alone are allowed to posses at this point.
What the Founding Fathers had in mind? I don't think so, but what's YOUR opinion?
Why would you say that based upon my hypothetical statement? I have not advocated anything in that statement that could be considered a call to violence. I have not stated that a democratic process within the framework of a Republic should be abondoned in favor of violence. On the contrary, I have expressed what I believe the notion of what was written by the authors of the Constitution and it's 2nd amendment to have been, which is the notion that an armed society, on an equal footing to those that rule them, is a peaceful society where the citizens, as well as the government, know that the citizens will remain a party in all government discussions and decisions. I was simply pointing out that we, as citizens, are a long ways from that position, if indeed that was the Founding Fathers intent.
You take that as some threat to your own personal safety?
That's ludicrous...unless you are a politician that wishes to take the rights given the citizens under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
Last edited:
Actually, the founding fathers did have this in mind. Here's James Madison on the subject:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
I know a lady who recently was frightened that she heard an intruder in her house. She sent her husband out to check. She had two kids in the house. When her husband came back, she was so frightened she thought he was the intruder and emptied the gun at him. He is alive, but barely. The kids missed getting hit. Who is safer because they had a gun in the house and accessible? It was their right.
That would be a coup to me. So I hope what would happen is you would be one of the majority, living in a democracy that would support the democtratically elected government and condemn the armed citizens outright, and help to defeat by any means you can, those that seek to over through the then current leader of the U.S. whatever party he or she happens to be from at the time.
My hypothetical question.
If the majority of the electorate felt the cons of bearing arms in public were to great, and voted democratically against the right of citizens to bear arms in public. Surely it would be the responsibility of the politicians to carry out that wish without the fear of armed reprisals.
I think your courts got it right if I have understood this correctly i.e. it applies to arms in the house, not in public.
Two recent Supreme Court decisions, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), interpreted the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm (unconnected to service in a militia)[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald, the Court determined that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.[4]
This is like the guy in the other thread that said he was threatened by his own gun from some young punk that was ransacking his home.
If you aren't trained and prepared to use a firearm properly, then you should not possess one. Period. It is a big responsibility to own and be prepared to use one. You must think about things ahead of time and "be prepared".
Obviously this woman was NOT prepared to use a firearm properly, and obviously in the case of the .357 in the "punks" hands, the firearm was not stored properly. Both these circumstances were no bodies fault but the irresponsible gun owners, combined with the irresponsible and illegal actions of the individuals who actually pulled the trigger or pointed the gun at the home owner.
As I just said, many of the actions taken in BOTH these scenarios are ALREADY illegal.
But you would have to agree that the way we are going, with Washington wanting to dictate more and more of our lives, and how we have career politicians that live lives that are only fit for a king, that the world 'rule' could be seen as appropriate.
I always love it when someone brings up 'having a nuke' because it shows through and through, how common-sense has been lost.
I have also noticed that liberals absolutely hate our founding fathers. I have even been told by one that they were idiots...
