Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Can you imagine the carnage if a bunch of armed untrained yahoos tried to get in a shoot out with the shooter? The last thing I want is an untrained, nervous, excited hero wannabe, getting in a shoot out with a killer.Do you know anything about guns and using them? If you could have a gun for self defense, what would it be? Handgun? If so what caliber? Shotgun? Assault rifle? Where would you keep it? Would you lock it up? Have a trigger lock? What kind of loads would you use? Would you practice regularly? Would you maintain it? Do you have children?MOst people don't think about any of these questions. Have you?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Question was directed to Legend, who has no experience with weapons but wants to pack one.Evidently you are a professional so the questions do not pertain to you.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I know from experience how long it takes my car to stop. I know how to safely operate it. I use it everyday so I am very familiar with it.
If you tried to protect yourself and your family in your home you very well might hurt yourself or them if you do not have proper training and experience.Any idea how far a bullet can travel. What happens if you shoot a handgun at a supposed intruder and it misses and the bullet goes through a wall? Or through a window? Do you know where that bullet will stop?If you were going to have a weapon for home defense a handgun is probably the worst choice, but it is the one a lot of people choose because it is "cool". Most people are more likely to shoot themselves, a family member, or someone they know than they are an intruder.When was the last time you had an intruder? When would you shoot if you had intruder? As soon as you see them? Will you wait to identify them as someone you don't know? Will you think about what is behind them if you miss? How many shots will you take?These questions have everything to do with defending yourself with a gun. I support gun regulations in no small part in order to keep handguns and assault weapons out of the hands of idiots. I am not saying you are an idiot, but you are sure starting to sound a lot like idiots I know.Do you truly think it is as easy as just having the gun?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Bullshit. People use cars everyday. The vast majority of gunowners rarely if EVER use their guns. There is no comparison on the issues. Yes I have driven almost every day for many years. I will never sue a gun every day. Driving is second nature and an almost reflexive act. Guns are not ever going to become that for people. So the driving gun shooting comparison is complete bullshit.Again. You claim to be a professional. The average person does not think of these things or even acknowledge that these things need to be taken into account.Handguns are a bad choice because they require a fair amount of expertise, they have one use, the bullet will penetrate walls and can hurt or kill people in your family or people outside of the house.A shortbarelled shot gun is a much better choice. Requires less expertise, can be used as a club and with the right load will not penetrate walls. A 12 gauge shot with birdshot will incapacitate anyone inside the confines of a house. Also, with a shotgun you can quickly change your load to buckshot if needed. A handgun gives you one option. We don't care about the intruder. They are intent on murder and mayhem anyway aren't they.
I find it amazing that a person that touts themselves as a professional has no concerns of where the slug ends up. Where the slug ends up is the most important point about the whole discussion.A vast majority of the people wanting to pull a gun on an intruder have never considered the consequences of a missed shot.All of your answers are the answers of a person who has thought through the situation and is at least a psuedoprofessional. The average moron has not thought through any of it. Again you are misstating everything I have said. I have never, ever said anything to this affect on this board or anywhere. I think guns should be highly regulated. As in registration for all handguns and assault weapons. I have no problems with centerfire rifles that ahve a sporting purpose, shotguns and rimfire rifles. No need to register them.Also, I think most of the damn fools out there are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member with a handgun than they will with a shotgun.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That is not what you have been advocating throughout this thread.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you really believe most gun owners go to ranges? Se above. Earlier you stated you were all for gun control laws, just not the banning. Well what is it? Are you for gun controls or not? Do you think a person should be able to walk in and buy a handgun immediately? If not, and since you are in law enforcement, have you never heard of a crime of passion? I think a 48 hour wait for purchase of a handgun is more than reasonable. If you need a handgun immediately, no good can come of it. Please show where this has been advocated on this forum.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Now this is where you start to sound like a wing nut. Who on here has even suggested such a thing?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I believe RAZD supplied data[you know facts] that debunked this line of argument you keep using in relation to homicide.Here I will repost it.Gun violence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

% homicides Firearm homicide
Country with firearms rate per 100,000 pop.
England & Wales 8 0.12
Australia 16 0.31
Ireland 24 0.32
Canada 34 0.54
Switzerland 37 0.56
United States 65 2.97

---

Do you have evidence for their total crime rate being "among lowest in the world? Because I don't see it. Source
Click on the different categories. Do you see any of them where Switzerland is "among the lowest in the world"?Total crimes(per capita)
#20
Total crimes
#31
Total Murders
#48
Total Murders(per capita)
#57 much better, but that wasn't your argument
Total Murders with Firearms
#23
Total Murders with Firearms(per capita)
#19
Suicide rates in ages 15-24
#3Now what was your argument again?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime. I think that has been totally debunked.If you look at figures like murder, there is a tendency for higher incidence in countries with more lax gun laws. Also there does not seem to be a substantial decrease in things like burglaries in countries with lax gun laws as Legend proposed.Maybe you might want to research your point and actually provide some evidence. You make lots of assertions, but as of yet have provided no evidence to back them up.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

In Message 259 did you not say? Is this what we call moving the goal posts?First you say they have among the lowest crime rate in the world. Now when that is proven wrong, you change the argument and say well compared to UK they do.It helps to know facts before you pull them out of your ass.Also, I love how you cherry pick your stats.How about Murder by Firearm (per capita)? Do you ignore anything that doesn't support you?Comparing UK and Switzerland is a bogus comparison in many ways. Switzerland is a much more homogeneous society then UK.Do you think poverty might be affecting these figures more than gun ownership?

quote:

---

A report issued in 2005 by the UN agency UNICEF on child poverty in 26 OECD countries found that 6.8% of children in Switzerland were affected. Families were defined as poor if they received less than half the median income for their country. In this respect only the Scandinavians had a lower rate. Switzerland tied with the Czech Republic. The rate in Australia was 14.7%, in Canada 14.9, in Great Britain 15.4, and the US 21.9%.

---

SourceOr do you throw out everything that doesn't not support your views?Switzerland also score higher on the Human Development Index than UK, or the US for that matter.
Human Development Index - WikipediaAny chance that might have an effect on number of robberies and crime in general?Oh wait according to you the ONLY thing that affects crime rates is gun ownership.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No please look it up.Rahvin,
Can you confirm or deny that you stated that defend the rights of assailants over the rights of the victims?Hyro claims you have and I do not remember reading that anywhere.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You brought up Switzerland, with claims of one of lowest crime rates in the world and I brought up the figures to show you were not correct. I believe they were only in the 50's on one category. So again here you make another statement that stretches reality. As for you argument of a comparison to UK, that is all well and good, but my response was to the fact that you have stated that Switzerland had "one" of the lowest crime rates in the world. This is patently false and the evidence shows it. Again, misrepresenting what I said. The context of what I said was in relation to your assertion that "Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world". There was nothing at all in the post that could be interpreted that I disagreed with the NationMaster data. I disagreed with your assertion about Switzerland crime rates being among lowest in the world. Again, I ask do not misrepresent what I say. Boy you sure like top twist things around in order to make yourself feel better don't you.Lets start from the beginning.1) You make a statement claiming Switzerland has among lowest crime rates in the world.
2) I respond with data(facts) showing you are wrong.
3) You then decide to change your argument saying they have lower crime rate than UK. I never disagreed with that assertion.
4)You make the assertion that the cause of the lower crime rate is guns in Switzerland
5) I point out that there are other factors in the society that need to be addressed.
6)You claim I am being disingenuous.Nice debating there bud. Show me how they were taken out of context. The context was debunking your claim that Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This has been shown to be not even close. It isn't conceivable on any measure to be true. How? By showing UK has a higher crime rate than Switzerland? As I have tried to show, which you refer to as disingenuous, is that there are other factors involved. You refuse to even consider any other factor than guns. Again this is a statement that is bs rhetoric. Doesn't really say anything, but it misrepresents what I have said. I guess you need to say it in order for you to try to get some sort of "debate points".Now to reiterate my stand on gun control.
I own guns. I have no problem registering every gun I own. Be that rifle, shotgun or handgun. I do not own any handguns and never will. I do not see a need for them in my life.Handguns should be heavily regulated and should have a registration like a car(funny how people use the car comparison, but fail to acknowledge how heavily regulated cars are). When it is sold the gun must be legally transferred to the new owner. If the gun is used in a crime, the owner of record must explain why they were not in possession of the gun.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Hmmm, well regulated militia. This does not mean the private militia groups that have appeared in last few decades.So that means people in the National Guard should have guns. But I do not see anything that says everyone has the right to any gun they want without regulation.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Easy guys easy. It is amazing that as soon as there is a discussion about "gun control" a certain segment brings out the strawman of banning guns. No one here has advocated the banning of guns in the US.Straggler doesn't count since he is from a country that already heavily regulates guns and RAZD has not said any such thing. No matter what you want to claim he said he has never advocated the banning of guns.So do we want to discuss gun control or the original OP. In most states in the US you cannot shoot someone just for breaking and entering. You must be able to prove imminent threat. One of the points of the reasoning behind this is that breaking and entering is not a capital offense. If convicted a person will not lose their life. So a homeowner should not be able to be judge, jury and executioner. Now if you are being actively threatened yes you do have the right to use deadly force.You may disagree witht his, but it is accepted law in a lot of states. What is your interpretation. That people should have access to guns without regulation? Are you saying that regulation of guns is a misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment?The point I am trying to make is that the 2nd amendment does not give a blanket right to gun ownership. The courts have repeatedly upheld the ability of the legislatures to regulate guns.From District of Columbia v. Heller 2008

quote:

---

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

---

The Supreme Court acknowledges that regulation of guns is right and necessary. Do you even read what people post? Have I ever advocated the banning of guns? Lose the strawman it is not helping you at all. First point, is there anyone seriously advocating the banning of guns?Second point, what is this obsession with armed uprising that is going through a small segment of our country. Why are people so paranoid and want to have armed insurrection? Who is taking away your rights now, more so than in the past? We always give up rights. It is part of living in a civil society. Not everyone can exercise all of their rights at the same time as everyone else. There is a word for that. Anarchy. For some reason we have a segment of our population that admires the thought of anarchy.Nice to see you get your constitutional law advice form Penn and Teller. But then again I have never said that we should ban guns. (Hint: Read what I posted, not what you think I posted) I have said that regulating guns is right and proper.By the way some serious legal minds disagree with Penn and tellers interpretation.

quote:

---

In one description, known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction, the Second Amendment has been considered formed with an opening justification phrase, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would modify a noun.[86][87][88] Under this interpretation, the opening phrase is considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[89] This was a grammar structure that was common during that era.[90] This grammatical description is considered by some to be consistent with the concept of the Second Amendment as protecting a collective right to firearms for members serving in a select militia.[91]

---

SourceAgain I want to make it clear for the umpteenth time. I am not for banning of guns. I just want to make sure you understand that it is not as black and whitte as you want to make it seem to be.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The problem is he never said it.

quote:

---

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

​

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

---

SourceI can pretty much guarantee you can not find an original source for this quotation.One quick suggestion. Always confirm the provenance of any quotation you use to make a point. The majority of quotes I see are false.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts