NationStates Jolt Archive

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?

i think if more of the population owned firearms there would be more dead looters and more dead people who confronted looters.

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?
The situation would be a tad bit better if less of the population owned firearms, but that's neither here nor there

Nope, not at all. I feel if a society wishes to have guns, it should have that responsibility and abide by it. if not, I feel it should suffer no penalty.

The United States people, in the majority, want to be a gun owning society. I feel it should always be down to the individuals choice.

The problem, Jordaxia, is that individual choice many times "involves" other people...

And, the lootings hve not changed my opinion. I'm still strongly agaisnt weapons. Of any kind. Anywhere.

Yes, especially if Louisiana and New Orleans in particular had an active volunteer militia service.

The lootings have changed my feelings. I now believe that every American should have the right to protect themselves, their families and thier property with a gun.

Yes, especially if Louisiana and New Orleans in particular had an active volunteer militia service.
All that would have changed was the number of dead. Property can be replaced, people can't.

The problem, Jordaxia, is that individual choice many times "involves" other people...


That's a problem with democracy... it's a price to pay. I'd rather see people go towards an unarmed society of their own volition than by law.

I should state now that though I defend gun-owners rights, I would never myself own a weapon. That and I'm in Britain. :D
As such, I'm not "informed". I just voice my opinion on the matter.

If there were no guns, there would have been no armed looters. That simple.

All that would have changed was the number of dead. Property can be replaced, people can't.
No it wouldn't have. There would have already been some stucture with which to organize relief efforts, seeing as the city and state systems were otherwise non-existant. The armed gangs would be dead, especially as militia members would have much better gun training.

If there were no guns, there would have been no armed looters. That simple.
Because of course a baseball bat isn't a weapon :rolleyes:

No it wouldn't have. There would have already been some stucture with which to organize relief efforts, seeing as the city and state systems were otherwise non-existant. The armed gangs would be dead, especially as militia members would have much better gun training.
So you then agree that more people would be dead? Thanks.

If the national guard and FEMA can't do it, what makes you think that a bunch of militia can? The god damn ARMY had to pull out of the city for a bit because they didn't have the forces to reimply order.

I just wished more New Orleanians had guns. Especially those being raped in the superdome and the convention center. Especially the children being groped.

In events like these, the people need protection. If only the criminals have weapons and have proven that the government can't protect its citizens during a national disaster, then we need to assure ourselves that the last line of defense against being potentially murdered or raped is armed.

I just wished more New Orleanians had guns. Especially those being raped in the superdome and the convention center. Especially the children being groped.

In events like these, the people need protection. If only the criminals have weapons and have proven that the government can't protect its citizens during a national disaster, then we need to assure ourselves that the last line of defense against being potentially murdered or raped is armed.

You wished more CHILDREN owned guns? Wow... you're kind of extreme, aren't you?

You wished more CHILDREN owned guns? Wow... you're kind of extreme, aren't you?
I hoped I didn't make it seem that way.

I meant the parents and guardians of the children.

All that would have changed was the number of dead. Property can be replaced, people can't.
Sorry to sound like a "typical redneck American", but if that number of dead was the people raping little girls, and the people stealing bigscreen t.v.'s and the people breaking into peoples houses, then I'm all for a bigger body count.

I certainly don't want to see the people taking food shot, but all the people who took advantage of the storm for financial gain are scum, and get none of my pity!

More children with guns? More people with guns?

Particularly my opinion is that they should have spent the money of the weapons on food.

More guns had result in more deaths.

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to make a gun in a garage machine shop than it is to make whiskey in a backyard still, and look what happened during prohibition. I can make a pistol in about two hours with only basic tools, so tell me how to stop that?

How to make a gun (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873647920/entrepreneu0a-20/103-4094361-1334238)

Sorry to sound like a "typical redneck American", but if that number of dead was the people raping little girls, and the people stealing bigscreen t.v.'s and the people breaking into peoples houses, then I'm all for a bigger body count.

I certainly don't want to see the people taking food shot, but all the people who took advantage of the storm for financial gain are scum, and get none of my pity!
You don't kill people because your property was stolen. You most certainly don't kill people unless you absolutely have too without a trial.

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to make a gun in a garage machine shop than it is to make whiskey in a backyard still, and look what happened during prohibition. I can make a pistol in about two hours with only basic tools, so tell me how to stop that?
Screw that, I can easily grab a kitchen knife in about 10 seconds.

Suddenly guns are more lethal than knives now?

Another weird thing I'm seeing is that people think that owning a gun = the owner murders someone automatically

It hasn't changed my opinion in guns in the least. If there had been less guns around, less people would be dead. And I don't care if the dead now are criminals or not, they are dead human beings. It shouldn't have happened.

If I were to criticise anybody, I would criticise the administration for nor being prepared for emergencies like that and for generally not doing it's job and letting te situation escalate like this.

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?
No, I still think that guns should be legal. When guns are illegal, only criminals are able to get guns. Most of the people looting now were probably criminals already, and would have guns whether they were legal or not.

I'd also like to point out that it is easier to make a gun in a garage machine shop than it is to make whiskey in a backyard still, and look what happened during prohibition. I can make a pistol in about two hours with only basic tools, so tell me how to stop that?

Mind logic? I don't know.

But I don't know ANY spaniard planning to make his own gun... neither trying to buy one...

You don't kill people because your property was stolen. You most certainly don't kill people unless you absolutely have too without a trial.
So enlighten me. How do you protect your home, your property? Just let them take your life savings, everything you've ever worked for, everything you have left? Go right ahead. Me? I'm gonna shoot the son of a bitch that tries to get into MY home!

The protection provided by guns is pretty small compared to the capacity to cause unnessecary deaths. If someone is pointing a gun at me, how does the fact that I have a gun on me provide any protection? They have the power to kill me before I can even touch the thing. Basically the key to surviving when guns are common is to be the first one to fire, and not waste time thinking. If the average citizen is likely to be carrying a gun, it just means that criminals need to behave more violently to preserve their own safety, and since criminals are more likely to have the element of surprise, it's going to be innocent people, not criminals, that die as a result.

Another weird thing I'm seeing is that people think that owning a gun = the owner murders someone automatically

In this case, yes. Why did the people shoot the helicopters and policemen? To defend theirselves from them? Oh, please...

Mind logic? I don't know.

But I don't know ANY spaniard planning to make his own gun... neither trying to buy one...
And thats because you live in a different society. We in America don't have a choice as to whether criminals want guns or not. In America, criminals want guns, and will do anything to get them. I certainly wont be the first to give mine up. You figure out how to disarm ALL the criminals, and maybe we'll talk about my handguns. Until then, I'm armed and protecting myself!

In this case, yes. Why did the people shoot the helicopters and policemen? To defend theirselves from them? Oh, please...
I was actually talking about actual people with guns. Not people with no souls.

In this case, yes. Why did the people shoot the helicopters and policemen? To defend theirselves from them? Oh, please...
Those are the people that law abiding gun ownwers want to protect themselves from!

So enlighten me. How do you protect your home, your property? Just let them take your life savings, everything you've ever worked for, everything you have left? Go right ahead. Me? I'm gonna shoot the son of a bitch that tries to get into MY home!

Where's the menace, dude? How many times has somebody tried to break into your house?

I was actually talking about actual people with guns. Not people with no souls.
You get my "BEST QUOTE OF THE DAY" award! Cookie or medal, sir?

So enlighten me. How do you protect your home, your property? Just let them take your life savings, everything you've ever worked for, everything you have left? Go right ahead. Me? I'm gonna shoot the son of a bitch that tries to get into MY home!
I let the police handle it. You can go ahead and 'shoot the son of a bitch', but you'll be surprised to know your stupidity will land you in jail, or possibly even death row.

I let the police handle it. You can go ahead and 'shoot the son of a bitch', but you'll be surprised to know your stupidity will land you in jail, or possibly even death row.
Better brush up on the law. I ,by law, do not have to leave my home for any reason, and can shoot anybody who threatans my life. Bad guy comes to my house, I point a gun at him and tell him to leave. He leaves, fine. He keeps coming, I fear for my life, and bang bang. Dead bad guy. Legal

BTW You'll be surprised when your stupidity gets you raped or killed before the cops show up!

Better brush up on the law. I ,by law, do not have to leave my home for any reason, and can shoot anybody who threatans my life. Bad guy comes to my house, I point a gun at him and tell him to leave. He leaves, fine. He keeps coming, I fear for my life, and bang bang. Dead bad guy. Legal
Threatens your life doesn't mean 'stealing your goods'. You shoot anyone who doesn't pose a threat to you and you kill them, self defense does not apply. No, being in your house doesn't pose a threat. Coming at you does not pose a threat. You have to be in danger of losing your life for self defense to apply as a defense to murder.

You get my "BEST QUOTE OF THE DAY" award! Cookie or medal, sir?
The medal. Behind me is a huge pile of cookies from other NSers.

The medal. Behind me is a huge pile of cookies from other NSers.
Don't go getting egotistical on me now! :D

Threatens your life doesn't mean 'stealing your goods'. You shoot anyone who doesn't pose a threat to you and you kill them, self defense does not apply. No, being in your house doesn't pose a threat. Coming at you does not pose a threat. You have to be in danger of losing your life for self defense to apply as a defense to murder.
Your missing the point. BY LAW, you have the right to defend your home. Having a theif in your home who won't leave is a logical threat to your life! Do you think he'll just say " I'm gonna rob the crap out of you, but don't worry, I won't hurt you. And why the hell are you even trying to defend criminals? Do you think non-dangerous people break into houses to rob you?

I let the police handle it. You can go ahead and 'shoot the son of a bitch', but you'll be surprised to know your stupidity will land you in jail, or possibly even death row.

Yeah, because in the current state of NO, it's so much easier to get guy in trial now.

If the people in the superdome had the guns, those that actually want to be saved could've at least fought back against those looters.

Look at the situation now: People without guns are being raped, killed, and victimized by the looters. The police and the army cannot help them.

Do you honestly think the government can save your ass if you were in the Superdome as of right now?

And people keep asking me why I wouldn't want to move to the USA... :rolleyes:

Your missing the point. BY LAW, you have the right to defend your home. Having a theif in your home who won't leave is a logical threat to your life! Do you think he'll just say " I'm gonna rob the crap out of you, but don't worry, I won't hurt you. And why the hell are you even trying to defend criminals? Do you think non-dangerous people break into houses to rob you?
By LAW, you do not have the right to kill a person who does not pose a threat to your life.

Because what you are saying, that we should run around shooting people, PEOPLE, because of a few measily dollars which you'd most likely get back anyway once the police find him, is insane and against the founding principles of our nation (no shit, it's called English Common law. Self defense is not a defense to murder when you are 'defending' property).

Threatens your life doesn't mean 'stealing your goods'. You shoot anyone who doesn't pose a threat to you and you kill them, self defense does not apply. No, being in your house doesn't pose a threat. Coming at you does not pose a threat. You have to be in danger of losing your life for self defense to apply as a defense to murder.

Depends on the local laws, doesn't it? A while ago I saw a story in the news where someone shot his neighbour's dog and then went back home. The neighbour picked up a bat and broke his window, and the original guy shot him and killed him, and was acquitted of all charges because of "self-defence". Sounds like a great way to get rid of someone you don't like.

My problem with people who are really pro-gun is that not all violence happens between an evil, inhuman monster and a pure, innocent victim. Guns just increase the chance someone will die in any violent situation.

Problem is, once you have so many guns out there, gun laws aren't going to help at all as people who really want guns are going to be able to keep them. Still, it's just delusional to think that all those guns somehow increase your safety.

(no shit, it's called English Common law. Self defense is not a defense to murder when you are 'defending' property).

New Orleans is in England now?

Bugger me, I knew the storms were getting bad outside but I didn't know they were that bad!

Incidentally, I think the only death penalty that should ever be legal is the one dished out by the would-be victim at the time of the would-be crime. So of course I'm for gun ownership. And knife ownership. And blunt object ownership. Anything that'll beat the living shit out of a would-be attacker is good in my books.

By LAW, you do not have the right to kill a person who does not pose a threat to your life.

Because what you are saying, that we should run around shooting people, PEOPLE, because of a few measily dollars which you'd most likely get back anyway once the police find him, is insane and against the founding principles of our nation (no shit, it's called English Common law. Self defense is not a defense to murder when you are 'defending' property).
By legal definiton, all you need to shoot an intruder is to have a "reasonable fear for your life". Now tell me someone who wouldn't "reasonably fear for their life" if someone was breaking into their house? How can you know whether they want your t.v. or your daughters virginity?

By legal definiton, all you need to shoot an intruder is to have a "reasonable fear for your life". Now tell me someone who wouldn't "reasonably fear for their life" if someone was breaking into their house? How can you know whether they want your t.v. or your daughters virginity?
No. To quote "...a person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force if he or she beleives that the danger of bodily harm is imminent, and that the force is necessary to avoid this danger".


Reasonable. Shooting someone because they want your TV is not reasonable. You are allowed to defend yourself if you, or anyone else in your family, is attacked (again, reasonably), but shooting someone in your home is not perfect self defense, as it is unreasonable force with a lack of imminent bodily harm.

Reasonable. Shooting someone because they want your TV is not reasonable. You are allowed to defend yourself if you, or anyone else in your family, is attacked (again, reasonably), but shooting someone in your home is not perfect self defense, as it is unreasonable force with a lack of imminent bodily harm.

Now, what if I were to threaten them with the gun, but they proceed to attempt to take the TV? Can I use force to disable them, but not necessarily shoot to kill?

Now, what if I were to threaten them with the gun, but they proceed to attempt to take the TV? Can I use force to disable them, but not necessarily shoot to kill?
You could shoot them at that point. Deadly force would be imminent. However, we're talking about the defense of property here, remember. Looting doesn't occur in homes, generally, mostly in stores.

No. To quote "...a person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force if he or she beleives that the danger of bodily harm is imminent, and that the force is necessary to avoid this danger".


Reasonable. Shooting someone because they want your TV is not reasonable. You are allowed to defend yourself if you, or anyone else in your family, is attacked (again, reasonably), but shooting someone in your home is not perfect self defense, as it is unreasonable force with a lack of imminent bodily harm.
Except that there is precedent that someone breaking into your home is in and of itself a threat of bodily harm and there for justification of lethal force.

No. To quote "...a person is justified in using a reasonable amount of force if he or she beleives that the danger of bodily harm is imminent, and that the force is necessary to avoid this danger".


Reasonable. Shooting someone because they want your TV is not reasonable. You are allowed to defend yourself if you, or anyone else in your family, is attacked (again, reasonably), but shooting someone in your home is not perfect self defense, as it is unreasonable force with a lack of imminent bodily harm.
So are you gonna let the intruder in and see what they want first?

Except that there is precedent that someone breaking into your home is in and of itself a threat of bodily harm and there for justification of lethal force.
Debatable, based upon the juristiction. Florida is the only state that I believe has that rule.

Debatable, based upon the juristiction. Florida is the only state that I believe has that rule.
Texas as well... Im sure there are others

Texas as well... Im sure there are others
Do they? I thought it was only florida, I remember reading about the change made to the florida law because it was so out of line with the laws of the other states, and went against literal centuries of established legal reasoning.

i think if more of the population owned firearms there would be more dead looters and more dead people who confronted looters.
Technically, if no one had firearms, the looters wouldn't have been able to get guns.

No, it is totally irrelevant to the issue of 'looting' ;)
Gun ownership should be open to everyone,
Although the "harder stuff" - aside from handgun's,
Need to go to more trusted person's - which
get position's because they are trusted, and
that shouldn't be just ease-ay. Any criminal's
of violence should loose the right to it for, say,
2-3 year's, and.....looting should be legal :P

I'm not sure about other states, but in Alabama, if someone was to break into your home you may confront them with a firearm only if they have a firearm as well. If they have a ballbat, you only have the right to confront them with a weapon of equal force. However, if a female is at home by herself and someone breaks in with the intent to do bodily harm, she may use a firearm regardless of what the subject in question is wielding.

Actual burglaries in my neck of the woods are very rare. In this part of the country, most of us love to hunt and we own several guns per household.

I'm not sure about other states, but in Alabama, if someone was to break into your home you may confront them with a firearm only if they have a firearm as well. If they have a ballbat, you only have the right to confront them with a weapon of equal force. However, if a female is at home by herself and someone breaks in with the intent to do bodily harm, she may use a firearm regardless of what the subject in question is wielding.

Actual burglaries in my neck of the woods are very rare. In this part of the country, most of us love to hunt and we own several guns per household.


An odd law. A 72 year old armed with a bat who is up against a 250 lb. 19 year old who is also armed with a baseball bat won't be a fair fight no matter how one looks at it.

I know its in you constituion and everything but what use is an assualt rifle. You can defend yourself with a pistol. Are they for sport? WHat are you trying to Kill? a T-Rex?

An odd law. A 72 year old armed with a bat who is up against a 250 lb. 19 year old who is also armed with a baseball bat won't be a fair fight no matter how one looks at it.
I don't think it means litteral parity. Of course you could use a gun if it was a 72 year old being assaulted with a baseball bat, because that is most likely going to end up being deadly force, one way or another.


(Note: I do support the right to bear arms)

nope, has no effect on my views of gun ownership.

True that Karlila, I agree. Odds are that 72 yr old man will break that law though and use a gun instead. The odds of him being convicted, even if he broke the law would be very slim. There's not anyone I know of that would set on a jury and prosecute a senior citizen for that. Would you?

I know its in you constituion and everything but what use is an assualt rifle. You can defend yourself with a pistol. Are they for sport? WHat are you trying to Kill? a T-Rex?
I think the use would be to defend yourself against an oppressive government. Imagine the American revolution if they didn't have guns.
Besides if it comes time for my husband to defend our family, I think I would rather him have an assault rifle than say a hunting knife.

I know its in you constituion and everything but what use is an assualt rifle. You can defend yourself with a pistol. Are they for sport? WHat are you trying to Kill? a T-Rex?

They believe the government is out to get them. ironically, many of that type seem to love the Patriot Act.

If Wal-Mart didn't sell guns there would be a lot less guns in that cty right now. If everyone had a gun then I could see it going worse. Imagine if someone with an M-16 snapped in the superdome.

Personally I'd take wielding a baseball bat over dodging bullets.

In this case, yes. Why did the people shoot the helicopters and policemen? To defend theirselves from them? Oh, please...

Actually, the millitary is planning combat operations in New Oreleans to clean out "insurgents" there.

But in the real world where you go to the shops and buy milk and bread your're not going to be held by an oppressive government!

But in the real world where you go to the shops and buy milk and bread your're not going to be held by an oppressive government!

Until the day that you are.

Then you'll have no means to prevent it because, well, all those nasty weapons of mass defence have been safely locked away so only the police and army have them.

...oh, and the thugs. That aren't in the army or police force.

but we won't for christ's sake. The state should have a Monopoly on violence and arming the old folks isn't going to stop a ruthless dictator!

but we won't for christ's sake. The state should have a Monopoly on violence and arming the old folks isn't going to stop a ruthless dictator!

Wanna bet?

i think the government should stop spending money on aid and buy every citizen a gun.

then we'd aaaaaaall be safe

I bet my life's possesions that there won't be a military coupe in American in the next ten years. Any takers?

I bet my life's possesions that there won't be a military coupe in American in the next ten years. Any takers?

Not a military coup, I don't believe there will be. However, if there is civilian unrest on a MAJOR scale, do you wanna be one of those poor souls that is unarmed?

I can guaratee you I won't be waving a gun, I'd be sat under a table soiling myself queitly. Some call it cowardice, I prefer to call it self-preservation

I can guaratee you I won't be waving a gun, I'd be sat under a table soiling myself queitly. Some call it cowardice, I prefer to call it self-preservation

Don't get me wrong, I won't be out and about waving a gun either. I will retain my gun in order to protect my family and myself. It's not something I ever wish to see happen. I pray that it doesn't.

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?

It hasn't changed my view... Guns cause problems, lawlessness wasn't an issue after the big tsunami in asia.
But if the yanks want to keep miniguns in their glove compartments...Let them.

at all

do you think the situation would be any better if more of the population owned firearms?

Yes, I realized that I am low on ammo and should never allow myself to be in a position where I cannot defend myself in a situation where the government collapses, something that most people would have laughed at you for saying in the not-so-distant past.

I'm off to Wal-Mart for some more 12 guage ammo and .40 caliber hydroshock rounds.

Cheers.

I bet my life's possesions that there won't be a military coupe in American in the next ten years. Any takers?

Yes, it is called the HUMMER. That would be a military coupe. Now send me your pathetic belongings.

:mp5:

Hawkintom']Yes, it is called the HUMMER. That would be a military coupe. Now send me your pathetic belongings.

:mp5:


Too funny, I didn't catch his misspelling of "coup". Enjoy your winnings!

another con is executed perfectly...