I'm going to take this gun control argument
 

one step further. Those of you that are upstanding citizens, with good moral judgment, who believe in a free society free from murder and other crimes....I posit that you have a moral duty to arm yourselves. In order to protect yourself, your families, your community, the constitution, and this country.

Now, I realize not everyone is going to make this choice. But is it wrong for me to have respect for those that are willing to take on this moral burden? Why do some of you shrink from this burden?

Now, I am not advocating machismo, or vigilantism, or anything of the sort. I'm not saying you have to appreciate guns or enjoy the use of them. I'm saying that by arming yourself, you have taken upon yourself a critical duty that our forefathers saw as defense of this country.

Now if you want to be the equivalent of a conscientious objector, that's fine. But please don't criticize those who aren't. Even the justified killing of another man in self-defense is poison to the soul, but we don't recognize the weight of that. The burden of that. Some would rather die, and I can respect that also. But not all of us want to die.

I find both sides of this argument to have merit, and have considered getting a gun myself, but the idea that arming oneself is a moral imperative seems pretty stupid to me. The vast majority of gun violence in this country is related to accidents/convenience, so while defending one's country against an evil government is noble, I'm not paranoid enough to think that the need to do so is more likely to arise than a neighborhood kid accidentally shooting himself with my gun or me shooting myself with it, whether accidentally or not.

Given how lazy people are about fitness, I don't want a bunch of armed citizens who don't know how to aim and operate their weapons. For those conscientious, I'm happy for the Second Amendment, but for our slovenly hosts, please just stay away.

I have two comments:

1. I suspect the rate of accidental shootings is very low among those people that properly store their guns. My guns are all locked away. And quickly accessible as well. But there are a lot of people who either don't care, or can't afford such solutions. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't own a gun.

2. If you think you may be at greater risk for suicide, or if you have a loved one that is at greater risk that also would have access to the arms, this may be a good reason to not own a gun, since it is a recognized risk factor for suicide. If you an old white male alcoholic who is divorced and own a gun and suffer bouts of depression--you are statistically a time-bomb in terms of suicide risk.

But the overall point is that there is always a risk to taking on a moral imperative. And that is why I'm saying why are some of you that are criticizing us that take on this risk, not willing to take on this risk yourselves?

Ok that makes sense. Perhaps my previous post was a function of my general lack of confidence in my fellow humans.

What did you mean by convenience? Accidental shootings are only a very small fraction of the size of intentional shootings.

By convenience, I was referring to violence being much more prevalent when guns are available, the best example being suicide. Those who don't have easy access to a gun or the golden gate bridge are much less likely to kill themselves. I'm sure Waters could back me up on that.

That seems self evident. Probably you won't jump off a skyscraper if you live on a farm in Kansas.

Indeed.

Mike, you'll be happy to know that I have a concealed weapon permit.

Are you sure you fit the criteria?

:)

I shot a BB gun once. It didn't do anything for me. I have been living gun-free ever since, and I feel pretty darn safe.

I was robbed at gunpoint on my mission once. I just dropped my backpack and ran away when I saw the guy starting to pull the gun out. I thought I was going to get shot, and I thought it'd be better to be a moving target. Very scary. I'd argue that if I had had a gun and pulled it out, the chances of me getting shot would have increased.

If you think you would be worse off having a gun when you are about to be shot, you are probably right. Instead of just being dead, you will be shamed and dead.

I imagine that the Swiss citizen who doesn't own a gun probably doesn't feel at personal greater risk from outside attack than anyone else in the country.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/swissgunlaws.html

However, he benefits from the fact that others do own them. It's like herd immunity. If you don't get your polio vaccine, you are highly unlikely to get polio in this country. But eventually you get to the point (and I don't know where that point is) where a decreased percentage of vaccinated persons leads to a wide-spread outbreak of disease. The protection you were afforded by others taking on the risk of a vaccine, is now gone.

This is why you never see a sign in someone's yard that says "Gun Free Home". Even the anti-gunners know the value of herd immunity oh so well.

Mike, I assume you meant you're NOT advocating vigilantiism.

The folks in the nice homes in New Orleans out of the floodplain who didn't get flooded and wanted to stay there found weapons were indispensible.

Yes, good catch. I am not advocating vigilantism.

Whether or not this is true, I don't like the attitude. It reminds me of moral vegetarians. You think you've reached an exalted moral state when really the conditions that allow you to live this way have nothing to do with you, they're a fluke, completely at odds with 99.9999999% of human history and recurring exigencies in the most of the world outside the wealthiest countries. Indeed the very ethos that enabled the temporary luxury of eschewing guns is irreconsilable with the one you are now espousing. You are free to turn your nose up at guns precisely because your ancestors were expert at wielding weapons and killing with them. Your self-satisfied piety is false and delusional and the secure conditions you now take for granted are ephemeral.

Wow, Seattle and Mike on the right side of the same issue. When will that happen again.

And Sooner and woot on the wrong side again.

Having concealed weapons requires practice boys and girls. Make certain you make your weekly trek to the gun range. Our neighbors are lucky enough he built a gun ruan underneath his garage and driveway. It's a cool thing to have.

So who has a nine millimeter or a forty caliber?

Do you have buckshot in your shotguns?

What sort of gun safes do you have? I recommend a battery operated key coded one.

Do your rifles have scopes?

I haven't taken a position on this issue, but I've quite clearly expressed that I at least sympathize with Mike's side, so clearly you're wrong as usual. Your insistence on the sort of binary thinking that requires pigeonholing me into one side or the other once again demonstrates your general thoughtlessness.

Waters and I mostly share the same beliefs, which is why his unremitting hostility toward me is so puzzling.

I didn't say you guys were wrong for loving guns.

I'm saying that guns don't appeal to me personally. You can do whatever you want with your guns in the privacy of your own homes.

I do not recommend a battery operated key coded safe. Why? Because batteries fail. I recommend systems that do not rely on electricity.

Of course we all realize that this life is the end of our existence and that's why we want to cling to it at all costs.

If you rely on the arm of flesh, you will die by the arm of flesh. A pacifistic reliance on God is something that I can respect. But like I said, some of us prefer not to die at the hands of evil men.

General Patton once said: "The object of war is not to die for your country but let the other poor SOB die for his."

I am all for retreating and avoiding taking human life as much as possible. However, when the life you protect is not your own and is someone who is helpless, like my kids or wife, there is no option to retreat. You can't just scoop up the kids and walk away. You can't just give them the keys to your car ("hey wait a sec, let me get the car seats out of the back here..."). You are vulnerable, and criminals know it.

This is also why I am glad to live in a state that passed Castle Doctrine laws this past year.

That's like saying I don't like steak because I once ate a McDonalds hamburger and it didn't do anything for me.

The only thing a BB gun will stop is a Frenchman.

I'm all for the right to carry arms. I don't own a gun myself, but have been considering getting one. I'll probably hold off until I can afford to do it right...get a good gun safe, etc.

My dad had some hunting rifles in his closet most of my life. I knew where they were, and occasionally snuck in to check them out. He'd taken a vital part of the firing mechanism out (can't remember offhand what it was), and kept them hidden (I was never able to find them, although I never looked particularly hard. I was more afraid of stumbling onto my parent's collection of lingerie, and the associated nightmares).


I guess, my contribution to the thread is:
-People shouldn't be REQUIRED to own guns.
-People shouldn't be REQUIRED to NOT own guns.
-There should be a realistic standard of responsibility required for anyone wishing to purchase a gun.

This discussion reminds me of a snippet from Bowling for Columbine.

Michael Moore is talking to James Nichols at his home and James is discussing his views on the OKC bombing and the investigation that followed.

James claimed to sleep with a loaded .44 under his pillow. Michael Moore questions whether he is exaggerating. After some coaxing, James takes Moore over to his pillow and, sure enough, a loaded .44 under his pillow.

I guess I dont see the need. Maybe I live in a bubble or ignorant of the peril all around me. Thank goodness.

I also found it interesting that Moore continues his conversation with Nichols and a discussion about the right to bear arms ensues. The question becomes, "at what point do we impost limits on which "arms" people can bear?" Since the constitution does not specifically mention guns, is weapons-grade plutonium my right to own in my house? Can I arm myself with that?

I will pass on the guns and hopefully nobody breaks into my house. And if someone breaks into my house, they can have my TV. I can always buy another.

You would not like living in Virgin, Utah.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4a1e7d5f0e.htm

:D

I know how to properly secure guns and am not prone to suicide. The rest of it is relative, isn't it?

No, I would not. The reasons, however, have little to do with this article and much to do with the name, location, and local citizenry...

No offense to any potential Virgin-ites frequenting the board (can they get in-ter-net down there?)

Yes, they can.

Virgin is just a few minutes from the entrance to Zion National Park. It is incredibly beautiful down that way. But even better than Virgin is Hurricane which is a UN free community.

lol - apparently you took my post literally. I'm well aware of where Virgin is, and just how beautiful it is there.

Beauty is not, however, the main factor in what I feel is a "great place to live". The other factors weigh pretty negatively in regards to Virgin.

arms = firearms

It just says arms. Not firearms.

Also, if you want to go the legislative intent route, it could be argued that the right to bear firearms was to be extended while serving in a malitia. If you arent in a malitia, you dont need the firearms. Or a .44 under your pillow.

What else would it have meant? The things hanging from your shoulders? It means firearms. Pretty hard to bear a cannon...

I'm too lazy to rehash this, here's an earlier thread:



http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...ght=ammendment

Understood. I couldn't live there myself.

Dang. I really need to take a deep breath and not look at things so literally. I'll blame it on this being President's Day.

You you are defining "bear" as a physical ability to carry, not to own privately?

I can bear 50 lbs of c4----yeeeeehaaa!!! KAAABOOOOM!

The "keep" part takes care of the ownership.