Gun Control

No, I meant that any burglar who thinks 'Hmm, I wanna nick a telly to pay my rent. Oh, but they might have a gun. I better take one just in case.'

Besides, I live alone but I don't need a weapon to feel safe at night. I feel safer going out at night than during the day. Apart from occassions were I think I see aliens in the dark. (Sad but true)

The Doctor.:

Besides, I live alone but I don't need a weapon to feel safe at night. I feel safer going out at night than during the day. Apart from occassions were I think I see aliens in the dark. (Sad but true)

Same. I don't understand how having a weapon makes people feel safer. I've never felt truly unsafe in my life or in need of a weapon. Whether this is naiveté or a blessing, I'm not sure.

I'm torn with this issue and I do not think it is very black and white. ON the one hand, I understand why people feel the need to have guns- be it for hunting or for self defense. However, we can not ignore the fact that many people use guns for murder and intimidation. In some states it is very easy to aquire guns, leaving a whole wide range of guns in the possesion of dangerous people. But, at least in America, we can't just completely outlaw guns because it is one of our rights. "The Right to Bear Arms"

I think their should be tighter control on guns. I don't see why people need to be walking around with AK47s, I don't think you need an AK47 to hunt. Or Sniper Rifles. Or any high powered weapon. I mean, a handgun should be fine if you really think you need protection that much to have a gun in your house. And if you insist on having a gun in your house, it shouldn't be armed and loaded under your pillowcase. Should be locked away where children can't get to it.

I mean, I don't think that is that demanding.

^^I also support the ban of automatic weapons, too. Civilians certainly don't need them; this isn't Baghdad. Rifles for hunting, handguns and pistols for protection. That's it for me.

I wouldn't absolutely need a gun to feel safe, but it's always nice to have a backup in case Fido or your security system aren't doing their job one rainy night.
Granted, a knife or my bare hands-- maybe even a well-placed shoelace or flower vase-- would get the message across to the burglar pretty dang well, but a gun does it faster and much more effectively. Plus it gets the attention of neighbors, which is an additional help.

Heh. I just thought of another point of discussion. In Texas, or at least the part I live in, we have the "protect your castle" law. If we have an intruder on your property whose intent is to cause us harm, then under that law we're legally allowed to blow them to kingdom come. I'm all for it, as long as the person has decent proof that it was an actual trespassing and not some angry neighbor or annoying little kid they had in their crosshairs. What does everyone else make of this?

I understand that people don't want to hurt others. I carry a knife around, and I don't intend on ever using it, but if someone attacks me, I'm not just going to let them. And that's what I don't understand... would someone really just stand there and let some person assault them or rape them or murder their family?

I don't know, maybe I believe that empowering the victim is a good thing because two guys broke into my cousin's house, and stole a lot of their electronics. But of course, before they did that one guy raped and beat my cousin while the other guy pistol-whipped her husband with the butt of a illegally acquired gun.

Oh, and those two criminals have yet to be caught.

ierotic.:

Heh. I just thought of another point of discussion. In Texas, or at least the part I live in, we have the "protect your castle" law. If we have an intruder on your property whose intent is to cause us harm, then under that law we're legally allowed to blow them to kingdom come. I'm all for it, as long as the person has decent proof that it was an actual trespassing and not some angry neighbor or annoying little kid they had in their crosshairs. What does everyone else make of this?

I find that disgusting, sorry.

That's basically saying that you can murder someone if you think there is a threat. I cannot comprehend that, at all. That's just dehumanising criminals. I just...bloody hell, that's wrong.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that you killed someone. Could you have that on your conscious? 'Cause I believe laws should be equal, i.e. you should still be charged with murder/manslaughter regardless of what actually occured and only taking situational factors into account when passing judgement. Christ only knows how that little law can be manipulated.

Dancing Caveman:

I understand that people don't want to hurt others. I carry a knife around, and I don't intend on ever using it, but if someone attacks me, I'm not just going to let them. And that's what I don't understand... would someone really just stand there and let some person assault them or rape them or murder their family?

I don't know, maybe I believe that empowering the victim is a good thing because two guys broke into my cousin's house, and stole a lot of their electronics. But of course, before they did that one guy raped and beat my cousin while the other guy pistol-whipped her husband with the butt of a illegally acquired gun.

Oh, and those two criminals have yet to be caught.

Possession of a weapon increases aggression levels - that's one of the arguments against British police carrying guns. (That and when they did shoot someone, it was the wrong person)

If I was attacked, then I have no idea what I would do. But the capacity for cold anger inside of me...well...coupled with a rather good sense of neuropsychology and the ability to shut off my "goodness"...I would fear my reaction, personally. I don't deal with anger very well, I rarely get angry and when I do, it often turns into myself. But, I've often thought on what I could actually be capable of in such a situation. I've came to the conclusion that regardless of the situation and how many more people I may be against, you gotta stand your ground and go down fighting.

If someone murdered my family - I honestly couldn't give a shit about what happens to me - then, if I knew who it was...I really couldn't comment on my actions.

A family member close to me was brutally attacked when I was younger, causing severe head trauma and the onset of vascular dementia. But it turned out to be a blessing in disguise and I've forgiven them.

Dancing Caveman:

And that's what I don't understand... would someone really just stand there and let some person assault them or rape them or murder their family?

Absolutely. I would.

Dancing Caveman:

I understand that people don't want to hurt others. I carry a knife around, and I don't intend on ever using it, but if someone attacks me, I'm not just going to let them.

Carrying a knife, whether you intend to use it or not, is actually illegal where I come from. It's also been documented by the Home Office and others that carrying a knife actually increases your likelihood of getting stabbed.

elizabeth gaskell:

Dancing Caveman:

And that's what I don't understand... would someone really just stand there and let some person assault them or rape them or murder their family?

Absolutely. I would.

I honestly don't believe that. Not at all. That a person would allow themselves to be RAPED...no. I don't believe that at all. That doesn't seem like pacifism to me, it seems, to be honest, just plain absurd. I've been reading up on pacifism and what you're describing here doesn't sound like it at all like it. It sounds more like extreme pacifism, like the equivalent of religious zealots. Like I said, I've read a lot on pacifism these past couple of days and no where does is it say "just stand there and be raped, rather than fighting back."

^ It would absolutely depend on the situation, no?

You do see victims complying - to an extent at least - with rapists if they feel that if they cause too much of a "fuss", they will be murdered.

And besides, even if you call out for help...people won't bother their arse to help you.

The Doctor.:

^ It would absolutely depend on the situation, no?

You do see victims complying - to an extent at least - with rapists if they feel that if they cause too much of a "fuss", they will be murdered.

And besides, even if you call out for help...people won't bother their arse to help you.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about consciously not fighting because because your beliefs say that you can't defend yourself, not because you think fighting will cause more harm than good or because you're too frightened to fight back.

---

And I think that as long as gun control laws are tightened, especially here in the US, then it's fine. I can see enough benefits in the situation, and I think they outweigh the other factors.

^^Not quite, it depends on the area you live in.
And the nature of the people in it.

edit: (Sorry, that was directed at The Doctor..)

Audrey T.:

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about consciously not fighting because because your beliefs say that you can't defend yourself, not because you think fighting will cause more harm than good or because you're too frightened to fight back.

To some, beliefs are worth far more than anything else. I believe Meg is one of those people, to be honest. Why else would someone do anything - positive or negative - in the name of some ideal? I'd really love to be one those people - I dream about it - but I'm too much of an arse.

5th of November, for the win. Today - or the predicted day or something - a man, a terrorist (or a freedom fighter) was executed because of his ideals.

ierotic.:

^^Not quite, it depends on the area you live in.
And the nature of the people in it.

edit: (Sorry, that was directed at The Doctor..)

Situational factors - always situational factors.

Audrey T.:

I honestly don't believe that. Not at all. That a person would allow themselves to be RAPED...no. I don't believe that at all. That doesn't seem like pacifism to me, it seems, to be honest, just plain absurd. I've been reading up on pacifism and what you're describing here doesn't sound like it at all like it. It sounds more like extreme pacifism, like the equivalent of religious zealots. Like I said, I've read a lot on pacifism these past couple of days and no where does is it say "just stand there and be raped, rather than fighting back."

You can call my beliefs absurd if you want. Like I said, I don't take that into consideration, I'm not asking you or anyone else to accept or even understand. I know what I believe and there is no changing it so we'll leave it at that, I think.

elizabeth gaskell:

Absolutely. I would.

So you wouldn't defend yourself. Would you defend someone else?

^ Does it matter?

Ghostless.:

So you wouldn't defend yourself. Would you defend someone else?

Go back and read all of her posts in this topic. I think you'll then get a pretty good idea that she has a pretty rigid stance on non-violence.

-

I don't like guns either. That is probably a product of growing up in an environment where guns just weren't needed. It was never instilled in me that I somehow needed a gun to defend myself or that I needed a gun to get by. I will never own a gun, and I also personally don't think civilians should be able to own guns just because they think other people might be a threat.

I don't agree with defending your home with a gun. Lock you doors and windows; install alarms; get a friggin' Rottweiler that may deter people from coming onto you're property. I just don't think one needs a gun. I need to breathe. I need to eat. I need to pee and I need to drink. But I don't need to shoot people. It isn't a necessity. I think some people are almost brainwashed into thinking everyone needs a gun, when that isn't the case at all.

Guns just seem like a hassle.

It's In The Blood.:

^ I don't see how it was hypocritical. I said that anything which was made purely to cause pain disgusted me. That doesn't conflict with whether I believe people should defend themselves or not.

The purpose of the gun is to shoot. Shooting hurts or kills. That is it's purpose. What's confusing about that? Guns = killing. Whatever you use them for.

Defending yourself is purely to hurt someone. Clearly, the hurting people part isn't what you're really against.

On another note, I don't see how anyone can say they would not defend during a violent attack. You can't say how your body would react when an adrenaline rush hits you. You may in principle be against violent defense, but in the heat of the moment when it's life or death, I have a feeling those principles would go by the wayside. Our desire for self-preservation is too strong.

^ Guns are designed to really put things out of their or our misery. As such, clouting someone in the plums is going to do a lot less damage than popping a cap in their ass or whatever the young people say. (I'm mentally 74, leave me alone).

Self-preservation is not always "kicked off". How can acts that triumph ideas over self-preservation exist? Suicide bombers, for example. You cannot say that. And even so, it has little relevance in this topic since pacifists would not own a gun and I severely doubt that they could kill someone in a case of self-defence. I'm a nominal pacifist - I have a rather terrible violent streak which may destory me or the world one day but it's not important right now and I'm against violence to the greatest possible extent - and I am against guns but I can defend myself using words, a sonic screwdriver and a bit of psychological know-how...or at least die trying. I could not say that I wouldn't use violence - that would be a lie - but guns have no other purpose.

Kurtni:

Defending yourself is purely to hurt someone. Clearly, the hurting people part isn't what you're really against.

On another note, I don't see how anyone can say they would not defend during a violent attack. You can't say how your body would react when an adrenaline rush hits you. You may in principle be against violent defense, but in the heat of the moment when it's life or death, I have a feeling those principles would go by the wayside. Our desire for self-preservation is too strong.

But humans don't exist purely to perform violence :)

Guns do.

You could use a cheese grater to do awful things to a person I'm sure. But they're also for grating cheese. Hammers are for hammering things, but can also be used to kill. Hypodermic syringes can cure or kill, and are used for both.

Guns? Um... they just kill. Unless Homer Simpson is right and we can use them to turn the TV on?

I'm not anti-violence, and I never said I was. I'm anti-gun.