Read This, All Fellow Gun Users

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you do not thing your life, or anyone's life is worth more than anyone else's, than what do you think of all the men and women who have died for this country, and for the rights you are excerising?

You say you're willing to take a beating, and lose all your possessions, have any of your loved ones beaten and lose all their possessions just so long as no one dies. So then you're also willing to give up all your human rights! You're willing to subjegate yourself to the whims and will of a tyrant or dictator because there's nothing worth killing someone over????

At some point, you have to decide that SOMETHING is worth dying for, and that translates directly into deciding that they is SOMETHING worth killing for. That does not mean we/they want to die or kill, but that we/they are prepared to do so to protect the people and ideas we cherish.

If you don't realize that, then your whole arguement is flawed.

Once you understand that, than defending those people and idea with the most effective tools available makes perfect sense.
 
also - a robber with a gun can quite easily be disarmed without you weilding a gun - look into martial arts, seriously i'm not kidding
Then why do the police carry guns? Why don't they just all learn martial arts. I see Hollywood has even corrupted OZ. :banghead:
90% of the time the attacker just wants money and sex - pulling a gun on them is going to make them want to defend themselves and they'll pull a knife or gun on you.
Possibly... but only once. :neener:

Actually any robber or rapist who carries a gun eventually plans on using it.
Ask any woman who has been raped by a larger, more powerful man if it hurt less because the scumbag didn't have a gun.
i beg to differ that guns are the great equalliser - you need to know how to use one. a 10 year old you picks one up off the ground defending agains an international terrorist?? guns do not make you equal.
Read the newspaper. Terrorists use car bombs, remote explosives and JET AIRPLANES. I don't carry a handgun on a daily basis looking to do battle with the Taliban. :scrutiny:

A 16yr old boy who KNOWS how to drive a Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z-28 can easily outrun a 35 year old man in a Kia Rio.

A 90 pound, 10 year old girl, home alone, who KNOWS how to use a handgun has nothing to fear from the 200 pound pedophile who has broken into her home with a rope and an erection. :D

I pray that your as yet upborn daughter doesn't have to depend upon you for protection. :(
 
Vindi C,
In all seriousness, you are a perfect candidate to move to Great Britian. They have solved your problem. By law, they have confiscated all weapons from law abiding citizens. By law they have eliminated self-defense as a reason for inflicting harm on a criminal who has broken into your home and intends to do bodily harm to you and your family. Home break ins are increasing at epidemic rates. Only the criminals have guns.

Seems this is the society you are looking for.
 
I wasn't going to respond to this, but I figured, "what the h3ll".

I really don't care too much for the way this country has gotten. We've gotten too soft as we've let the government and its laws shelter criminals and lazy people. I really like the ideals and way it was in the 1800s. You WORKED for what you had.....the government didn't give you money, food, and jobs because they needed a statistic. There were no hand-outs. Nothing was owed to you, and the laws of the land protected you and your property......Someone steal your horse....they hung you.....someone raped your mom.....they hung you.......you did anything wrong, and there was punishment. There wasn't any of these pansy excuses for why you did something wrong, blaming everyone except the person who did the crime. It's really simple. Except for a very few people, it is inherently placed in our minds what is "right" and what is "wrong". It's really simple. Don't to something to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you.....if you do, then I think you deserve the exact same thing in return. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to "rehab" multiple offenders. I'm tired of my tax dollars being used to shelter a killer behind bars who has the "right" to appeal and suck up the tax dollars. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to prisons to give criminals better meals than I have on occasion, give them cable TV which I don't have, and other amenities that they do not "deserve" in any way, shape or form. I'm tired of my tax dollars going to people who never "saved for a rainy day", and people who don not realize that you can't support a family of six on a McDonald's cashier's paycheck.

For those that do wrong, why would I want to just deter them? In today's society, if your "deterent" physically harms them, they come back and sue you. They "steal" everything you ever worked hard for. This country gives criminals more rights than victims, and it isn't right. I assume you have never been a victim. You've probably never had to work a hard, honest day in your life (at the age of 15) and saved for years, or made payments for years to truely purchase something you wanted or needed to then have it taken from you. You've probably never had a loved one murdered or raped. To this, I wish you never do. I hope you never have to go through one of these situations where your ideals will be challenged, because, trust me, you will change your views when it happens to you.......It's been said in many situations, and I'll repeat those famous words first spoken by someone I don't know......"Some people just need killin'." :evil:
 
Vindi C,
I'm just going to touch on a couple of your points, since others have done a good job here too.

You say guns are designed to kill. I have to disagree strongly with that for the simple reason that, in all probability, the majority of guns have NEVER killed anyone or anything. Things generally DO what they're designed to do. As you say, cars are designed to move people around, and most of them do that very thing. On top of that, you're applying a moral concept (killing) to an object which has no moral will (gun). A gun is neither moral nor immoral, it is subject to the moral will of the person using it who IS a moral agent. A gun is designed to fire a bullet. The function that bullet performs is at the sole descretion of the person pulling the trigger. It can knock a can off a fence, punch a hole in a target, kill an animal, or injure or kill a person.

You say no one has the right to kill anyone else. You say you're better off being beaten, robbed, raped, or killed than risk killing your attacker. Being a Christian, I've given this concept a great deal of thought, and I conclude that you're flat-out wrong on this score. Again, from a Christian perspective, my life is a gift from God and only God has the right to take it from me. You'd probably reply that my attackers life is also a gift from God and only He has the right to take his too, to which I'd reply that a person attacking someone who's done nothing to warrant an attack doesn't deserve such consideration, he's a moral agent, he's chosen an immoral path and resisting that path is the only moral thing to do. It's the only moral thing to do in an individual self-defence scenario, and it's the only thing to do in a case like World War II where good men with guns prevented Hitler from taking over the world.

You advocate less-lethal weaponry for self defense. First, no hand-held weapon will work 100% of the time, not even a gun. Why would I want to defend myself with a weapon that's intentionally less effective than that used by my attacker? Such weapons may have use in escalation of force, where you use them first and then fall back on lethal force if the less-lethal weapon proves ineffective. Personally, I'd prefer not to mess around with wires, barbs, sprays, rubber bullets, etc which may not leave me the chance to escalate should I require it. Note also that a gun has a huge psychological effect on an attacker and its presense may well cause him to break off his attack, while a tazer or other less-lethal weapon is much less likely to do so.

Finally, what you're doing is applying your moral standards universally. You say that no one has the right to kill another. If you wish to live that way yourself I wish you luck, you'll need it. I personally believe that there are times when taking another life is morally justified and failure to act is immoral. I wouldn't want the death of a loved one on my conscience because I failed to act, or used an inadequate weapon.
 
First off - I have not read anybody else’s response so I’m sorry if I repeat some of what has already been said.

Secondly - Wow are you clueless but even before reading this...
I'm 15 and blah, blah, blah
It was clear that you are a typical teenager. (Thinking you know it all when you haven’t a clue.)

So where to start?..Hmmm

Guns are designed to KILL people.
Yes some firearms are but not all of them. Just because they all can does not mean that is what they were all designed to do. Some are designed for killing animals. Some are designed for target shooting or clay shooting. Some are designed for rubber bullets and crowd control and the list can go on.

I understand your want to defend your families and yourselves but defending means to simply stop and NOT kill the attacker.
Says who? I got news for you. You come at me or my family with a gun, my objective will not be to "deter" you. It will be to kill you with any means possible using extreme prejudice. Killing an armed attacker is the only way I can guarantee they will never attack me, my family or anybody else again. If you don't like that answer then I suggest you never attack my family or me with a deadly weapon.

Another problem i have is even if your goal is reached - and every one in america owns a gun, what happens when someone opens fire on an attacker - everyone is going to pull out their gun (i know i would if i heard gun fire) and fire on each other. It is very hard to tell who has shot in a tense situation and a massive gun battle could quite easily occur - starting with just one or two bullets fired.
I understand that you claim to want an open discussion but if that is truly the case, you should avoid making such moronic and unrealistic analogies. Again, your age is showing with that one.

Please hear this - I AM IN NO WAY DENYING YOU YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR SELF AND YOUR FAMILY - i just think everyone buying guns isn't the way. there are many other solutions - as mentioned above.
That's wonderful that you are not trying to deny my right but that is the point. This is America and we have certain freedoms and rights. One of those freedoms is the freedom of choice. Two of those rights are the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense.

Basically put, I have the right to choose how to defend my family, my property and myself with a measured defense based on the threat presented. It is my choice on how I decide to accomplish that goal. You need not agree with my decision and frankly I could care less if you do.

In response to another topic - hoarding guns incase of a government monopoly on weaponry - i think this isn't a bad idea in theory. But what are you going to do IF America or any other country for that matter falls into communism or tyrany. What are you going to do when a squad comes knocking on your door for weaponry, kill four of them with your stashed M4A1 then be cut down by the rest of the squad? Its a waste of human life - and ontop of everything else - its putting your family at risk of torture and arrest, do u call that protecting your family? Even if every one in your neighbourhood does the same thing and manages to take down the gaurds that come knocking on their doors - does this make us any better than them? We are still taking human life, the reason for taking the lives is irrelevant.
I think you really need to better understand a situation and not generalize so much before making such broad, baseless statements. Very few people are "hoarding" guns. Most people simple buy and collect guns they are interested in or have a use for. No different than any other kind of collection. Yes some people are making it a point to buy guns that they feel the government may try to ban. Not in an effort to "fight" the government but in order to own a gun they are interested in having and may not be able to buy at some later point.

As to the second part of your statement, "But what are you going to do IF America or any other country for that matter falls into communism or tyrany." I don't care too much what happens in other countries but if the government of this county was to head down the path of Communism or Tyranny, to the point that no, non-violent, recourse could be taken, I would take up arms against it. If you would spend more time studying your history and less time posting on the Internet you would know that is exactly what the founders of this country did and is the biggest reason the 2nd amendment was written.

Would that put my family in harms way? Yes but no more so than allowing them to live under the type of society that you allude to.

"No man has the right to take the life of another human" i would prefer to have all my belongings taken and be beaten and let the robber go than take his life. Though i would prefer to stun him with an air tazer and get him the help he needs.
That is nothing more than your opinion. Do not ever be so foolish as to think that having an opinion makes you right. If that is how you choose to live your life, fine, more power to you. That is not my opinion nor is it how I choose to live my life and thankfully the laws of this country say I have the choice. Just keep in mind, all your decisions in life will have consequences. If you choose not to defend yourself or to use a less than desirable tool to do so, that’s fine as long as you acknowledge that decision may lead to you or a love one being seriously hurt or killed some day. A person who decides to live a life of crime needs to realize those actions may lead to his or her demise just as a person who decides to buy a firearm for “self defense†also needs to acknowledge the inherent risks of that decision.

1. GUNS ARE NOT TOOLS - THEY ARE DESIGNED TO KILL AND MAIM.
Statements like that are going to keep you from getting any respect as it says volumes about you intellect.

Here is the definition of the word “toolâ€â€¦

1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
2.
a. A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
b. The cutting part of such a machine.
3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession: Words are the tools of our trade.
4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument: “Modern democracies have the fiscal and monetary tools... to end chronic slumps and galloping inflations†(Paul A. Samuelson).
If guns are designed as you say to “kill and maim†people and they are successful in accomplishing this goal, how can it not be classified as a tool? Did it not facilitate the manual act of killing a person? Are they not used to perform an operation?

The fact that you do not agree with it’s usage doesn’t change it’s classification.

2. GUNS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO SELF DEFENSE.
Again, That is simply your opinion. One that you have done a very poor job of expressing.

Let me suggest the following. While it is good that you are thinking about such deep topics at a young age, try to realize that you are too young, under-educated and immature to draw any real, meaningful conclusions at this point in your life.

There are good reasons 15 year olds are not considered adults and given any of the privileges that come with that. You are probably sick of hearing this but you will understand this more when you get older.

Spend more time reading and studying and less time trying resolve the problems of the world and picking fights on the Internet. Studying and learning will pay off much more in the long run. Also, see if you can get a tutor to help with you writing skills. For a person of your age, your writing skills are sub-standard to say the least.
 
Guns are designed to KILL people.

Guns are designed to throw a projectile downrange. Sometimes this is for purely recreational use (airguns would be one example), sometimes it is to kill something; but still recreational (hunting) and sometimes they are designed to kill people.

I don't have any problems with guns being designed to kill people; because sadly, we still live in a world where some people need to be dead.

tasers (and similar) are designed to DETER people. I understand your want to defend your families and yourselves but defending means to simply stop and NOT kill the attacker. All you need to do is deter them - this can be reached by just knocking them unconcious with the many non lethal personal defence items for sale. And you could always use RUBBER bullets in your guns!

From this paragraph alone, I can see that you don't have a very solid knowledge base on the items you recommend instead of firearms. Here are a couple of problems with the ideas you have presented above.

1) Tasers can be very effective at stopping an attack - provided both probes penetrate to the skin and aren't stopped by heavy clothing, only one probe penetrates, etc. Tasers are also not very useful against multiple attackers and they can be (and have been) just as lethal as firearms for some people.

2) Similar devices - there is a tremendous difference between the taser used by police that sells for about $1,000 and the $69 stun guns commonly sold to civilians. Stun guns are next to worthless and will deter only the most weak-willed of attackers. Yelling at them and punching them in the snot locker would probably be just as effective as 90% of the stun guns I've seen.

3) Rubber bullets are quite capable of inflicting fatal injuries and routinely cause serious injury (broken bones).

4) Nothing is quite as effective as stopping an attack as several bullets placed in thoracic cavity of the attacker. Nobody wants to kill anyone; they just want to stop the attack. No method (including firearms) is 100% effective; but when it comes to a threat of serious injury or death being made to my family, I want the most effective solutions I can get. Right now, that is a firearm.

Another problem i have is even if your goal is reached - and every one in america owns a gun

Why would you assume that our goal is to have everyone in America own a gun? Why would I want a mentally ill person to own a gun or have someone who is uncomfortable and fearful of them forced to own one?

The only thing I want is that Americans have the choice to own a gun if they decide that is the best solution for them.

what happens when someone opens fire on an attacker - everyone is going to pull out their gun (i know i would if i heard gun fire) and fire on each other. It is very hard to tell who has shot in a tense situation and a massive gun battle could quite easily occur - starting with just one or two bullets fired.

Over 46 states have some form of concealed carry in place. 37 of them are either shall-issue or place no restrictions on carrying concealed weapons. Where has your hypothetical scenario happened in any of these states in the last ten years?

2004.gif

Please hear this - I AM IN NO WAY DENYING YOU YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR SELF AND YOUR FAMILY - i just think everyone buying guns isn't the way. there are many other solutions - as mentioned above.

Please hear this - I AM IN NO WAY SUGGESTING YOU MUST OWN A GUN FOR YOUR FAMILY - I am just saying that how you think I should live my life isn't your decision to make and I won't stand for others interfering with what I think is the best choice for myself or my family.

I
n response to another topic - hoarding guns incase of a government monopoly on weaponry - i think this isn't a bad idea in theory.

An excellent article on that subject can be found in this law review article.

Even if every one in your neighbourhood does the same thing and manages to take down the gaurds that come knocking on their doors - does this make us any better than them? We are still taking human life, the reason for taking the lives is irrelevant.

On the contrary, there is nothing at all immoral with taking human life in defense of yourself or another. Most of the world's religions recognize this. To whit:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, para. 2263: "The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. 'The act of self defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not.' [Thos. Aquinas]."

The Catholic Catechism, John A. Hardon, S.J., pp. 284,327: "Although it is generally wrong to kill another person, we may defend ourselves against aggressors and are not forbidden to kill in legitimate self defense."

"Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense." - Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II

-"...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason." -Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II

At an afternoon talk by the Dalai Lama on May 14, 2001 to 7,600 Oregon and southwest Washington high-school students, one girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate. The Dalai Lama said "acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators. But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun... "

The few religions that do not recognize this principle can only exist under the protection of civilized societies where force is implemented on their behalf by non-believers to create an environment where they can survive.

In the words of my father - who has served in vietnam, seen the horrors of war and who grew up in a rough neighbour hood with many muggins and burglarys - "No man has the right to take the life of another human" i would prefer to have all my belongings taken and be beaten and let the robber go than take his life. Though i would prefer to stun him with an air tazer and get him the help he needs.

Your father is entitled to live his life that way if he so chooses, as are you. What you are not entitled to do is make that choice for me or my family.
 
Vindi,

I must say, I know where you're coming from. I used to think the exact same way, when I was your age.
We are still taking human life, the reason for taking the lives is irrelevant....No man has the right to take the life of another human

I thought that way for a long time. Why couldn't we just use less than lethal force to stop attacks, and save life on both sides? We could get the person the help he/she needs rather than just ending their life.

However the sad truth is that effectiveness of less than lethal AND guns is not guaranteed to stop all attacks. (Especially when considering targeted attacks and drug induced rages, or multiple attackers)

That said, a firearm is much more effective at stopping any type of aggressive behavior than tazers etc.
The last thing I or anyone would want would be to kill another human. But the alternative of losing my life or perhaps my wife is not acceptable.

If I knew that tazers where more effective than firearms at stopping attacks, believe me I wouldn't bother with guns. (why not use the most effective tool for the job) I think most here on THR would agree with me on this point.

I think as you grow older, your outlook on this topic and others will change as well. Just remember to keep an open mind about everything, and to always question what you are told.

Do your own research, and make up your mind for yourself.

I hope this helps,
JPIII
 
I'll say this; the gun is the ultimate nonlethal weapon. There is nothing with more utility.

Why?

Because the *threat* of being shot will stop 99.99% of people who still posess their reasoning ability. That's as nonlethal as it gets because there's no contact, no action at all. Just fear. Even tasers have some small risk of accidental death attached.

The mugger who just shoved you into a back alley with the intent of beating you and taking everything you have on you quickly changes his (or her) tune when looking down the .355" hole in the end of your weapon.

For the 0.01% of people who aren't in posession of their reasoning abilities, were one attacking you, a taser or rubber round would be utterly useless. A human without a mind is an animal almost on par with a chimpanzee for sheer strength and brutality. This is where the lethal part comes in to play... it is a last resort and a necessary one. A human on PCP could rip you limb from limb using only bare hands... that's worthy of a lethal force response.

Put up a poll.... there are hundreds of CCW holders in here. Ask how many of them have fired a shot in anger, and how those situations would have ended up were they defenseless. It's eye-opening. Some day you'll understand that there are people out there who will simply just kill you if they had the chance, no reasoning, just pointless death... yours.
 
Vindi C:
You are obviously a man of principle - a young and inexperienced one to be sure but still one of principle. That said:

[sarcasm mode on]
In the event - unlikely though it may be - that your home is broken into and two mad men are taking liberties with your mother and sister by all means stand on principle - kick back and watch the show - don't grab that gun or knife or baseball bat because after all your principles will not permit you to stop those harming your mother and sister because you might just - god forbid - take their lives - even unintentionally.

Undoubtedly when it's all over and the badguys stand and zip up their pants your mother and sister will thank you and stand in awe of you because you stood by your principles - which is after all what's important. Who cares that they'll live out their lives reliving in their dreams every night the experience over and over. And heck you might even get a new nephew or half brother out of it. BUT what's really important is you stood by your principles.

Then of course you yourself might be put into a situation where you must make the decision to defend your self against someone who wants to kill you.

In that situation the only winner will be Darwin. Darwin always wins - always. And based on your postings - well - it's not too likely he'll be on your side yung'un. But at least when you're standing before the Pearly Gates and ole St. Peter asks "what brings you here young man?", you'll be able to answer "principle sir - principle".

[sarcasm mode off]

Vindi - your statement that "no one has the right to take a human life" is a common belief among the young, especially so among those who haven't experienced life anywhere but in a protected environment and among those who are truly pacifists (there's a few true pacifists around but IMO most who profess to be pacifists are really just cowards using pacifism as a cloak to hide behind).

And your belief though well intentioned is pure unadulterated CRAP.

There are situations where a person has the right to take a human life and they occur thousands of times a day all over the world. Evil confronts good on a continuous basis. As someone once said "for evil to triumph all that has to happen is for good men to stand by and do NOTHING".

Think about that. Killing may not be the option of 1st choice but it should never be removed from the table.
 
Last edited:
hammers are designed to put nails in wood
cars are designed for transportation
guns are designed to END LIFE

People are killed with hammers.

People are killed by cars

People are killed by guns

MY guns have never killed anything.
 
Vindi,

At this point, every good reason has been made (especially werewolf, above) , so there is not much I can add. You need someone, or something, in your life that you consider so precious you would die for them/it. Only then can you begin to understand us. We are not lawless, crazed, blood thirsty animals. We are protectors. We obey the law and expect others to do the same, realizing there are some who won't. If, heaven forbid, we should cross paths with one of these few, we don't shoot to kill--we shoot to live. Because, our life, and the lives of our loved ones, are worth it.

There are have been references to some excellent web sites. Here is another: Wichita
The 5 victims all complied with the Carr brothers. Four of the 5 died--the 5th was left for dead, but managed to survive.

I hope you will stick around and learn. This is a great site for it.

Regards,

fiVe
 
Individuals have a right to do anything they please as long as they-as individuals-are not harming or threatening anyone else. If other individuals would harm or threaten others in the same pursuit, then those individuals need to be selectiively controlled.

Pasting the same label on both individuals due to the common trait of possessing firearms is bigotry -- the current social *******.

Firearms are recreational equipment like baseball bats. I have several firearms and not one weapon among them.

Thousands of shots are fired for recreation with no intent other than developing hand-eye coordination--often from firearms built specifically for recreation using ammunition designed for recreation--for every shot fired to harm.

[After reading further into the thread]

The views you express are simply that: your opinion. These opinions are not based on experience.

In the event you remain pacifist, you should not expect others to be willing take only half measures, to lose their lives and allow criminals to prosper for the sake of an ideal.
 
Last edited:
I think there is more written in this thread than in my master of science thesis. I won't go through all the points but I will hit a couple of them. Most of the other responses are much better than mine but I want to toss in my 2 cents.

A gun is a tool.
Self-defense is an absolute right.

A job is always easier when you use the right tool for the job.

A world without guns would be awful. My wife weighs 115 lbs. She is not very strong. She is not an athlete. Any normal sized man could easily subdue her. I am pretty strong, and weigh in at 200 lbs. When my wife and I play around I can hold her in place without trying and she has to fight 100% to break free. We are just goofing around...someone who isn't goofing around could easily hurt her. Pepper spray isn't going to deter a would be rapist, robber, murderer. If it is anything like getting Dave's Insanity Sauce in your eyes (I did that once...wash your hands!!!) then I don't think it would work well against someone very determined.

I want my wife to have the best tool available for the job. I am not willing to let my wife be unprepared.

I met a guy on Sunday. He was about 6'6", 300 lbs. and hurt my hand pretty bad when I shook his hand (he didn't mean too, just a monster grip). Construction worker, all muscle. This dude could probably kill me with his bare hands in a couple of seconds. I wouldn't stand a chance against him. Now imagine being up against that guy...one punch and you could be dead. I can't imagine any sort of less-than-lethal device working against him sober...imagine drunk or high...less pain felt...less-than-lethal for him - probably lethal for me or you.

I used to be in the "guns are for sport group". Then I met my wife, got married, are talking about kids now. The thought of someone hurting my wife or my (future) kids makes it clear that they must have the right tools to defend themselves.
 
I'm surprised so many people are jumping this young man's ???? for his age.

Plenty of adults share those views.

I thought the thread start was a joke until I saw the guy's age.

The beginning of wisdom is questioning and discussion. Proverbs will take care of the rest.

Maybe us old farts (I'm 41) are just outraged by his youthful enthusiasm in thinking he can make an impact by his arguments. I don't think that is such a bad thing.

I would suggest we all take logic courses to enhance our critical thinking skills which are acquired skills.

Here's the deal. I have a fundamental right to defend myself and my family. I have a duty to do so. I will. If I can't run away I will fight. The law allows me use of deadly force in certain situations and also allows me the means to do so. A firearm is a useful tool to apply in certain situations.

It isn't that complicated.
 
I am not a professional sheepdog (soldier, police officer, etc) nor are many here. BUT we live like a sheepdog protecting our flock.

I don't want to be involved in a gunfight. I could be hurt,killed, or lose everything in a civil suit that a liberal jury ruled against me. But I will protect my flock.



ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is
true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it.
There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire,
but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of
them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf poundedhard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is,
most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law
enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa,
when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other
three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears
to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live
with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically hattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
 
the peak of non leathel arms is the so called "phaser on stun" too bad they are only on tv. they are concidered the ideal goal by "experts in the field" for the fact that it can stun an agressor but if nessary go beyond that (kill or wound). who knows in a hundred years they might be possible. till then a firearm is the best item that can stop an attacker better than pepper spray or taser cause sometime it takes the threat of death and sometime death to stop an attacker.

as for letting someone rape, keep in mind all the diseases out there that may kill you later down the road. or that maybe after he decides that leaving a witness is a bad idea too you may not have a long life.
 
Though i would prefer to stun him with an air tazer and get him the help he needs.

You say this as though you think all criminals are simply misguided or need help. That they can be reasoned with or reformed. Could you reason with a Charly Manson? Or reform a Ted Bundy? Jeffrey Dahmer?

Understand that there are people out there who are just plain, unreformable evil. They are little more than predatory animals. No morals, no concept of right and wrong, no possiblilty of reform. They would kill you or I in a hearbeat if they thought they could somehow benefit from it. Some would go out of their way to kill you, just for fun.

no matter what a human has done they do not deserve to die, i stick with this, NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE THEY DONT DESERVE TO DIE

This is true. The loss of human life is always a tragedy.

However... put yourself into the following scenario:

You are sitting at home, minding your own business. If you like, picture that you have a wife and newborn child there as well. A coldblooded killer with bloodlust in his eyes breaks down your front door and comes at you with a weapon. You have a gun.

Here is the question in it's simplest form. No what ifs, no alternatives, no idealistic best case scenarios. You kill him, or he kills you (and your child, and rapes your wife before slowly torturing her to death). 2 choices. That's it.

Does your attacker deserve to die? Maybe not. But do you deserve to die? Or your wife? Or child? Maybe no one deserves to die, but someone is going to. You cannot control that. What you can control is who. So who would it be? Him, or you?

As it's happening you'd have maybe a second or two to make the decision. Here, you have much longer. But I'd like to know what your answer is. As someone else said, it's not rhetorical. I'd actually like to know.

Him, or you?
 
Inconsistency

You said :

I'm going to have to agree with fire thorn - using lethal force to bring down someone in the middle of a killing spree would be the right thing to do to save lives. It would still be a tragedy to have to kill them (no matter what a human has done they do not deserve to die, i stick with this, NO MATTER WHAT THEY HAVE DONE THEY DONT DESERVE TO DIE) but it would be the right thing to do in the situation.

Killing someone in this situation can not be both "the right thing to do" and not deserving of death. Perhaps you meant to reiterate as you said earlier in the paragraph that it would be a tragedy, but in other posts you do seem to return to the idea that "no human ever has the right to take the live of another".

You have made many assumptions in your postings, and so many of the other members have addressed them that it's probably not worth me listing them here. I would suggest that you go through their posts and make a list of the assumptions that you've made so that you can verify them. A conclusion based on bad assumptions doesn't hold up to examination.

Something else you'd mentioned that I didn't see addressed: you claimed that engineers are working on making bigger caliber guns in order to make them better killing/maiming devices. I suspect that is wrong, but since you made the claim it's up to you to provide evidence to support it.
 
I'll admit first off that I haven't read the whole thread. But doesn't the first post sound like someone trying to get you to swallow a particularly unpleasant medicine?
 
Moderator Note

Thank you to all who have responded to our new member with logic, facts, and reasoned arguments.

Keep up the good work!

(And to those who have accused him of being a troll, please leave the moderator's job to the Moderators. Thanks.)

pax
 
Every body has the right to defend their life. I chose a firearm because it is the most effective, reliable and practical solution thus far. Criminals are often repeat offenders, why should i spare him with a less than lethal weapon? So he could possibly kill or hurt someone else next time? Im not putting the life of my friends or loved ones on a piece of equipment that has not been proven. Guns have been proven fight stoppers for over 300 years.
 
"NO ONE DESERVES TO DIE"

I can go along with this, but if you break into my house and threaten my family, in those fleeting seconds I will tend to not think about your natural rights. I won't wonder what your parents did to you to bring you to this state. I won't think about how I can temporarily disable you. I will be thinking about my and my family's survival.

I'll kill you deader than Julius Caesar but I certainly won't feel good about it.
 
I have heard many times that I should be able to disarm someone with a gun very easily if I "just study martial arts," and for that reason I should never ever need a gun. But for some reason, none of the people who have told me this have ever been able to claim that they've been in that type of situation before, or that they've successfully done so themselves. Have you? I spent four years studying Ju-Jitsu under a former state cop, who taught me several techniques for disarming a gun-wielding attacker. Yet he still carried his gun when he was on duty. Why was this?

I've also heard so many times that if I attempted to defend myself against someone in the process of attacking me, or raping my wife (let's be serious here- "give the person what he wants" will include your body if he wants it), he'll kill me. Yet not a single person who has stated this has been able to offer up even one documented example of this phenomenon in action. Can you?

In the "give the attacker what he wants" vein, I would also like to ask you what I should do if the attacker wants to help himself to one of my children. What should I do then? Do you have any children?

Since you're stating so much about what I should do in extremes, and the actions that I should take, might I ask you what degree of responsibility you have for the safety of myself, and those who depend on me for their safety? How sure are you that these things will work? Have these things worked for you in the past, and would you be willing to stake someone else's safety on it if you could get your way?

There are plenty of people out there who have great intentions, assume they know something, but are nonetheless entirely unqualified to be dispensing certain types of advice. I am great friends with a few people just like this, who have an entirely hollywood-based view of self-defense and fighting, and who feel confident that they could handle any threat. I do not share their confidence. I assume, given that you're offering up so much free advice, that you teach self-defense for a living, or you're an experienced law enforcement professional. After all, someone who didn't know what he was talking about wouldn't just go online and spread a bunch of conjecture and fantasy as if it was fact, would he?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top