Here is a reason to own a gun

[Peikko 1,575]

Unless of course these guns are in the hands of people who are symbols of authority. That is what works - we know that works, that is why we have law and order in most of modern society and that is why when these symbols of authority are absent, it's not a good thing which again, these stories are illustrating perfectly.

[Ali G. 37]

What one can be sure that if there are guns, they are not going to somehow magically all be in the hands of the 'right people' and the more guns there are, the less likely they are to all be in the hands of the 'right' people. The fact is that if there are very few guns around, less people will be attacked and injured than if there are more guns, that's statistical probability. What you and the people like you seem to think is that if there are guns, they are more likely to be used by the good guys in an unstable situation, or somehow that the good guys will outgun the bad guys. I don't see how that makes any kind of sense at all.

Spot on there.

[Ali G. 37]

Unless of course these guns are in the hands of people who are symbols of authority. That is what works - we know that works, that is why we have law and order in most of modern society and that is why when these symbols of authority are absent, it's not a good thing which again, these stories are illustrating perfectly.

When you have so many folks here marrying people from second and third world countries, it's not surprising that these people will advocate for behavior that is the norm in their spouse's country. I forgot who it was but remember the suggestions that we should have armed guard outside Starbucks and so on because it worked over there.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Ali G.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wheres the Bullshite button when you need it. You are fooling no one.

Why would I lie?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

First off, we don't know that having the gun was the reason why he has not been attacked all we know is that he 'feels' as if this is true. What we do not have is any statistical data to back this up. Are all the unarmed but law abiding citizens being attacked, are they all injured and dead? Are all the looters really interested in attacking the law abiding citizens or are they in fact more interested in attacking property that is not occupied by anyone? None of these questions is addressed or answered in the article, we don't know, we are just left to assume that that might be the case which is not a good basis to make any kind of statement of fact.

What one can be sure that if there are guns, they are not going to somehow magically all be in the hands of the 'right people' and the more guns there are, the less likely they are to all be in the hands of the 'right' people. The fact is that if there are very few guns around, less people will be attacked and injured than if there are more guns, that's statistical probability. What you and the people like you seem to think is that if there are guns, they are more likely to be used by the good guys in an unstable situation, or somehow that the good guys will outgun the bad guys. I don't see how that makes any kind of sense at all.

It's part of the fantasy.

[_Simpson_ 250]

First off, we don't know that having the gun was the reason why he has not been attacked all we know is that he 'feels' as if this is true. What we do not have is any statistical data to back this up. Are all the unarmed but law abiding citizens being attacked, are they all injured and dead? Are all the looters really interested in attacking the law abiding citizens or are they in fact more interested in attacking property that is not occupied by anyone? None of these questions is addressed or answered in the article, we don't know, we are just left to assume that that might be the case which is not a good basis to make any kind of statement of fact.

What one can be sure that if there are guns, they are not going to somehow magically all be in the hands of the 'right people' and the more guns there are, the less likely they are to all be in the hands of the 'right' people. The fact is that if there are very few guns around, less people will be attacked and injured than if there are more guns, that's statistical probability. What you and the people like you seem to think is that if there are guns, they are more likely to be used by the good guys in an unstable situation, or somehow that the good guys will outgun the bad guys. I don't see how that makes any kind of sense at all.

I think it goes beyond 'feel' when he fires shots over there head and then they retreat. You dont believe thats why they ran?

From the get go I have been saying that law abiding citizens should have access to guns in these situations, I never said that they would magically appear in peoples hands.

What you and the people like you seem to think is that if there are guns, they are more likely to be used by the good guys in an unstable situation, or somehow that the good guys will outgun the bad guys.

What you and the people like you seem to think is that if we say no guns then no ones has them, which in fact that bad guy dont play by the rules.

Just to be clear here, what I am saying is that law abiding citizens in these situation should have access to guns.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Why would I lie?

Well thats a good question, buts its obvious you have a bone to pick with gun toting individuals, well most of them anyways, you see them as small minded people with little peckers. You always come out with small ####### like comments every time a gun story as such comes up. You care enough to give us your opinion every time one of these stories come up so I guess there the proof you need but why would you lie???

[Peikko 1,575]

I think it goes beyond 'feel' when he fires shots over there head and then they retreat. You dont believe thats why they ran?

From the get go I have been saying that law abiding citizens should have access to guns in these situations, I never said that they would magically appear in peoples hands.

What you and the people like you seem to think is that if we say no guns then no ones has them, which in fact that bad guy dont play by the rules.

Just to be clear here, what I am saying is that law abiding citizens in these situation should have access to guns.

I didn't say that guns would 'magically appear' I said there is no reason to suppose that some magic occurs where the more guns there are in a situation, the more likely it is that these guns will be in the hands of 'law abiding' citizens.

No, I do not imagine for one moment that there will never be any guns in the hands of 'bad people' if there are laws regulating gun ownership and use, what I have clearly said is that the less guns there are, the less likely that there will be injury and death - that is a statistically verifiable fact. What is needed in these situations is procedures to ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities and that symbols of law and order are present to take care of those who would try to take advantage of these types of chaotic situations. This point is in fact clearly illustrated by what happens in these situations, people are not rendered safe by having access to guns, they are rendered safe by having a structure of law and order.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well thats a good question, buts its obvious you have a bone to pick with gun toting individuals, well most of them anyways, you see them as small minded people with little peckers. You always come out with small ####### like comments every time a gun story as such comes up. You care enough to give us your opinion every time one of these stories come up so I guess there the proof you need but why would you lie???

I see a good few of the gun toting folks on here as "small minded little peckers", a couple of posters in particular.

Cleo's post at the start about the reasons people give for owning guns - well its not wrong. It has been said on this board by assorted posters that owning a gun makes them feel that others respect them, that it somehow makes them "better" Americans. If that's not a subconcious ####### reference I don't know what is

Furthermore, I think there are depraved fantasies at work in some of these threads - that some individuals use these kinds of news stories because they secretly fantasise about being in a situation with "bad guys" so that they can pull their guns and be the hero (preferably so that they can show non gun owners the "error" of their ways).

Anyway to clarify: No, I don't believe in a gun ban in the US - its a waste of time to even discuss it. What I do object to, as I said, are the reasons people give for owning them. Or indeed the BS rationale you invariably hear from them about how a handgun is no more dangerous than a pencil or a plastic bag.

[Scott & Lai 12]

What is needed in these situations is procedures to ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities and that symbols of law and order are present to take care of those who would try to take advantage of these types of chaotic situations.

The ability to defend myself, especially when law and order have broken down, is a basic necessity.

[NickD 203]

I didn't say that guns would 'magically appear' I said there is no reason to suppose that some magic occurs where the more guns there are in a situation, the more likely it is that these guns will be in the hands of 'law abiding' citizens.

No, I do not imagine for one moment that there will never be any guns in the hands of 'bad people' if there are laws regulating gun ownership and use, what I have clearly said is that the less guns there are, the less likely that there will be injury and death - that is a statistically verifiable fact. What is needed in these situations is procedures to ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities and that symbols of law and order are present to take care of those who would try to take advantage of these types of chaotic situations. This point is in fact clearly illustrated by what happens in these situations, people are not rendered safe by having access to guns, they are rendered safe by having a structure of law and order.

Sounds like you are pushing a police state that our forefathers wanted to avoid. Venezuela recently became such a police state, if you publicly object to what Chavez is doing, can be shot by a Russian made AK-47 your tax dollars paid for.

[Peikko 1,575]

The ability to defend myself, especially when law and order have broken down, is a basic necessity.

That's again supposing that there is a realistic threat that one needs to have the ability to defend against, and that staying safely in ones home will not provide the means to achieve. The provision of real necessities, food, water and shelter is what is required in these situations and very little violence ensues if these are provided.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sounds like you are pushing a police state that our forefathers wanted to avoid. Venezuela recently became such a police state, if you publicly object to what Chavez is doing, can be shot by a Russian made AK-47 your tax dollars paid for.

A police state? Right, because all countries that have law and order established by the presence of a police force and a criminal justice system are police states, including the USA

[justashooter 430]

What one can be sure that if there are guns, they are not going to somehow magically all be in the hands of the 'right people' and the more guns there are, the less likely they are to all be in the hands of the 'right' people.

total logic failure.

in today's society some of the people who have guns are police or criminals, but an overwhelming majority of them are honest citizens. increasing the number of guns in circulation will increase them proportionately, so most new guns would be going into the hands of decent people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

More guns in circulation = a "proportional increase" in the number of right people with guns...

That doesn't sound like a very well thought out theory. That's like someone trying to claim that more cars on the road will result in less accidents...