[luvtolean]

But morals are not related to discipline nor training. Basic conscript level training of all people isn't going to change a lifetime of moral programming.

But all of this discussion is about an extraordinarily small number of people. Accidental deaths with firearms were 7xx IIRC from last time we did this.

We simply don't have a big problem with untrained gun owners, which most are by military standards, killing someone they don't want to in the US. So mandating more training, isn't going to reduce the number of people accidentally killed by guns.

Therefore, I ASSumed, you believed the fundamental problem with everyone having an assault rifle was an increase in murder.

My thoughts leading to my post where you called me, whatever, a blind gun-nut...went like this.

Murder is a violation of the social contract, and only a person without morals would choose to kill someone in cold blood.

While I'll be the first to agree with all people should train with their firearms, I don't think it would change the moral character of the country.

And if you don't change the moral character of the country, you don't address the fundamental problem as I interpreted it, which is a person using a firearm to murder another. Fully automatic or not.

I used the fact gun bans don't work, as a point that taking guns away, doesn't reduce murder. I think this gives creedence to the idea, it's not the gun, nor the type, it's the person using the tool to their own purposes that is the problem.

And then I went on to address a person lacking morals, aka a criminal, with tactical training and discipline. (which they would get if we mandated it) This, I think most cops would agree, is not the kind of criminal they want to be in a shoot-out with.

[steingar]

According to the CDC in 2004 there were 29,569 gun deaths, versus 45,113 auto deaths. That makes guns a huge killer in this country IMHO.

[luvtolean]

My 7xx number is accidental deaths. Some of those deaths could've been mitigated by training. (but not all of those were due to a lack of training, to err is human)

But there is no doubt, the murder rate in the US is too high and that is a bad thing.

[RRWANTR]

Originally Posted by steingar

According to the CDC in 2004 there were 29,569 gun deaths, versus 45,113 auto deaths. That makes guns a huge killer in this country IMHO.

No. That makes the gun user in those cases a huge killer.

[luvtolean]

Guns are tools.

They don't kill people anymore than hammers, cars, ladders and swimming pools do.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by jaim

Huh? Seems like some folks seem to know what I think about what type of people do and don't own guns. Re-read my last post and I answered LTL in the first sentence. Do you think I own a gun?

Yikes! I somehow missed that whole post! Sorry jaim!
Do I get a prize if I guess correctly?

[jaim]

Originally Posted by leelover

Yikes! I somehow missed that whole post! Sorry jaim!
Do I get a prize if I guess correctly?

Nope, but it will be interesting to see the answer.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by jaim

Nope, but it will be interesting to see the answer.

No prize?!? What's that all about?
So what you are wanting here is that I stereotype you based on your posting personality, right?
So, because that would indicate that you are a left wing, liberal, Bush hating Democrat I am supposed to say you are not a gun owner.
But on the other hand, you have actually posted something I agreed with regarding the Second Amendment, that might mean you own firearms.
But, you might just own them to be radical, unpredictable and incite drama to those who would want to stereotype you.
Or, maybe you own them (or one ) for some other reason.
Or, maybe you don't own any, but talk sorta like you might for the above reasons.
Wow jaim, you really are an enigma! Happy now?
This whole stereotyping BS, and the propensity to jump to conclusions, and come up with conspiracy theories, big or small, is ignorant. Just another way for people with agendas to spin events for their own use.
The subject of this thread was the possibility of a government requiring it's citizens to own guns. I weigh in saying I don't agree with this general principal. I believe there are alot of people who should not have access to the destructive power of firearms (or automobiles, or knives, or any other deadly apparatus), but I DON'T want that decision made by the government.

[steingar]

According to the CDC, in 2004, there were 112,012 non-firearm accident deaths, including 47,385 transportation-related deaths. There were 649 firearm-related accident deaths, making accidental gun gun deaths very minor component. There were 11,624 homocides involving firearms, versus 5,733 non gun-related homocides. There were 16,750 gun-related suicides, versus 15,689 non gun-related suicides. That makes gunfire a major component of how people die in the US. It certainly isn't the largest, but it is by no means negligible either. There were 311 gun deaths commited by LEO's, which makes it extraordinarily hard to believe that there are thousand of people shooting thieves in the night. There were 2,852 deaths of people under 20 out of a total of 17,527, if I'm using this database correctly. If I'm right, that makes guns a huge killer of the young.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

OK. I'm concealing a pistol. I'm attacked by a drunk. Rather than blow his head off, I twist his arm behind his back, sweep his legs out from under him, pin him face-first to the ground and call the police.

Have I used:

Discipline
Training
Morality
All of the above
None of the above

Interesting scenario. I would say you use all three.
But, there is something deeper here that makes mucho difference.
That would be judgment, IMO.
Just because you are carrying a deadly weapon does not mean you are justified in using it to defend yourself. If there is ANY way to avoid the taking of a life it should be taken.
This includes your scenario, where a (presumably) trained individual uses non lethal force to subdue an attacker. This is optimum, but not always possible for a large number of reasons. What if you were handicapped in some way, multiple attackers with weapons, etc. No matter how tough, or skilled, or whatever, no one is invincible.
The use of deadly force should be considered as a last resort to save your life or someone else's.
If someone carries a handgun and it makes them behave differently than they would with out it, they should not be carrying.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by leelover

The use of deadly force should be considered as a last resort to save your life or someone else's.
If someone carries a handgun and it makes them behave differently than they would with out it, they should not be carrying.

Agreed. Now how to insure that guns only get in the hands of people who can control themselves?

[edp]

I would say that carrying concealed does makes me behave differently to when I didn't carry. How? Because when one has the easy access to deadly force that carrying affords, it tends to make you a bit more aware of what is going on around you and way more aware of the responibility you have to yourself and others to actually be responsible. Losing it in an argument, flipping the bird to the idiot that cut you off on the road or getting in the face of the drunk that lurches into you in the bar doesn't seem to be my instant reaction. I would say that my anger buttons don't get pushed in the same way any more. Have I used a weapon defensively? Yes. Did I have to pull the trigger? No. In both instances other people, (not myself) were in danger of being killed or badly injured by someone who had lost it and was going for 1 - a knife and 2 - a large hickory pick handle. The very sight of a weapon and and being told to freeze and get down stopped what could have been very unfortutnate incidents. The police agreed as well.
This is, of course only my subjective reaction to carrying and does not mean to say that everyone who carries will somehow chill and think before reacting - but, in my experience, lots of other people who carry are cooler with it.

[bikerboy1974]

I have my conceal and carry permit. It was within my rights to get it, and as an avid firearms collector, I got it, mostly just because it was available. I carry a 9MM under the seat of my truck, but it has never been used. I have carried on my person as well. However I use this as my control theory, unless I am drawn upon or see someone in danger of being harmed by another person's firearm, I will not use my pistol. I was in a few situations in which I was in physical danger, once was a guy with a knife and the other was a guy who was unarmed except for his fists. I used my fists in those situations, because there was no justification for me to pull a firearm. I have never had to use a weapon yet, and hope I never do. But I also feel a sense of security for my family having it and knowing that I've received the training and have the self control to use it correctly.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Agreed. Now how to insure that guns only get in the hands of people who can control themselves?

, Now that's a REALLY good question!
Opinions?

[deftones156]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Agreed. Now how to insure that guns only get in the hands of people who can control themselves?

How do we ensure that motorcycles only get in the hands of people who can control themselves?

[phobiaphobe]

Weak.

[deftones156]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Weak.

yeah, but I am working to improve my bench.

Dude, it wasn't a dig, I was just trying to say that as long as we have the freedom as consumers to purchase anything that we wish, there will be a problem of irresponsible owners.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by deftones156

I was just trying to say that as long as we have the freedom as consumers to purchase anything that we wish, there will be a problem of irresponsible owners.

So where do you draw the line? If I have enough money to buy a "suitcase nuke" should that be my right? Maybe I am a responsible nuke enthusiast or maybe I just really hate Edmonton.

[leelover]

doesn't everyone hate Edmonton?

[deftones156]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

So where do you draw the line? If I have enough money to buy a "suitcase nuke" should that be my right? Maybe I am a responsible nuke enthusiast or maybe I just really hate Edmonton.

Sorry, what I should have said was as long as we have the freedom to purchase things that we can afford and that aren't against the law, there will always be irresponsible owners. I only assumed we were talking about things of a legal nature, my fault.

[steingar]

Laws can be kinda slippery that way. According to the more firearm-enamored members of the forum, the 2nd ammendment guarantees the right to bear arms. The type of arms remain unspecified in the Constitution, thus some court could conceivably, in the unspecified future, rule that one can own any damn weapon one can afford.

Iresponsible individuals have been and continue to be in charge of objects that can damage their fellow citizens. However, vehicles have an established place in our society, since we largely lack public transportation in the United States. I would much rather irresponsible individuals in charge of a motorcycle than a cage, they can do less damage with the former.

One could argue that firearms have a less established place in our society. Although the argument can be made for personal protection, there are established constabularies for that purpose.

I suspect tying levels of gun ownership to regional crime rates is entirely simplistic. There are numerous factors that control a complex sociological phenomenon like criminal behavior, many of which can be operant at once. An analysis of gun ownership levels of in the absence of other parameters can easily lead to false conclusions.

[msalser1000]

Well what makes most people resposible with a conceled wepon licence is, if you pull the mother****er and dont use it you are still going to jail. You unholster your smoketrain it becomes a crime. The only reasonable excuse is a last resort, if you can escape the situation you flee. If not you become a felon. With a conceled carry licence if someone can see you wepon it becomes brandishing, which they can jail you for.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by deftones156

Sorry, what I should have said was as long as we have the freedom to purchase things that we can afford and that aren't against the law, there will always be irresponsible owners. I only assumed we were talking about things of a legal nature, my fault.

Hey, even motorcycle and car owners are required to have a license and some basic 3rd-party liability insurance.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by edp

I would say that carrying concealed does makes me behave differently to when I didn't carry. How? Because when one has the easy access to deadly force that carrying affords, it tends to make you a bit more aware of what is going on around you and way more aware of the responibility you have to yourself and others to actually be responsible. Losing it in an argument, flipping the bird to the idiot that cut you off on the road or getting in the face of the drunk that lurches into you in the bar doesn't seem to be my instant reaction. I would say that my anger buttons don't get pushed in the same way any more. Have I used a weapon defens