should gays arm them selves (US)

[Pix]

What about pepper spray?

Doesn't always work. Granted, when you're being threatened by someone close to you who you know well as opposed to a complete stranger it's much easier to use the spray than a gun, and I know some women who say pepper spray is for the drunks who forgot what "no" means and the gun for the more serious menaces.

A friend of mine works in a prison and she said the guards used pepper spray so powerful that they had to wear full body suits and while it subdued many it drove some even more insane with rage who kept fighting with their adrenaline maxed out. And that's inside prison walls. Outside there are many other factors that negate the usefulness of pepperspray or even turn it into a liability (for example, try using it on someone when the wind is against you). And it should be obvious that pepperspray isn't anywhere as much a deterrent to a mob or gang than a gun.

IIRC, there are some states where it's illegal to use pepperspray but not a gun...I have no idea why.

And an unexpected benefit of using a gun in self-defense is that an attacker usually takes one look at it and runs (so you don't have to fire), whereas many aren't cowed by pepperspray so that you're forced to use it, and it's less likely to work than a gun and even if you get him he can get it on you and then be REALLY ticked. That also means there's a lot less chance of any legal harassment beyond filing a police report (chasing someone off with a gun is a lot easier to justify than actually assaulting someone with pepperspray).

[James]

The second amendment was put in place so the govt knew it's citizen's were armed and in theory whould not try to suppress them taking away their rights, instead now days they do it at the ballot box saying if we don't past this all these bad things will happen, becareful what rights you are willing to give up. We have gang banger groups here which have weapons, most can't hit the side of a barn, let alone a person, however as long as the individuals run free I am keeping my permit and my weapons.
Martial arts teaches much, I enjoy it, however a 48 year old colonel knocked my lights out when I was 18, he later asked if I knew why he won. Your better than me I replied, he said no thats not it, you fight for the sport of it, I fight for my life, James

[Pix]

Since so many gave their opinions and critical judgments, I'll give mine: I think it's silly to adopt an attitude of pacifism and expect the world to leave you alone if you do. At best you'll be sheep to be shorn and those who shear you will protect you to maximize your efficiency for their own benefit, but you're still protected from violence by the threat of retaliatory force (that is, violence), and the best you can hope for is only rarely (if ever) realized. That is, pacifism doesn't make the world a better place for anyone save the bullies and worse.

As an extreme example, my mentor (who got me into guns) told me of what changed her life: rape by a serial rapist that was so damaging that she lost teeth and had to be sewed back together (and there was more she endured). She had the chance to defend herself as he crawled through her window but she was so brainwashed to be a pacifist, that good girls don't defend themselves, and simply prayed to God for protection (ironically the rapist stopped assaulting her after she changed her prayer for the grace to die well) that she was a victim. I suppose today (unlike in the 70s when it happened) many would sympathize with her, but I'd rather congratulate her for defeating the rapist rather than consoling her for being raped. And because the rapist knew how to game the system he was back on the streets (despite her documented injuries that required multiple surgeries the case didn't even go to trial!), but she got called down to the station a couple of more times to help ID him and met other victims of his...victims who were raped because she chose to be helpless (and who chose to be helpless themselves contributing to her being raped). That is, her pacifism didn't make her enlightened, it didn't make the world a better place, it just made her raped, defiled, and her "spiritual/enlightened" choices helped to doom others to the same fate because evil men know the sheep they prey on won't stop them.

Seriously, think about it: who does the "I choose to be helpless and I think you should be, too" benefit? Not the good guys, and not us. It just makes us even more attractive targets to those who hate us.

And pools are far more dangerous and serve far less a function (guns save many lives, but I never heard of a pool that did) and saying that the chance of needing a gun is slim is, to me, as silly as saying you shouldn't have a fire extinguisher or insurance because you probably won't need it. Better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it, IMO. And it's arguably worse as not having a fire extinguisher doesn't make fires more likely (just increases the damage when they do break out) but if criminals have good reason to believe people can't resist them because of their pacifist philosophy or their being law abiding sheep who won't arm themselves against the law then it WILL increase (again, why pacifism is such an antisocial philosophy).

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand those gun crazy yahoos either who show off their guns like roosters and glibly talk about their right to bear arms and limited government while at the same time wanting to change the constitution so that the government is obliged to prosecute flag burners and gays as well as make us pee in a cup and perhaps sign loyalty oaths. I also despise what I call "chest beating patriotism" as well (that is, war is one of the first--and celebrated--options rather than the last, and lets all glorify violence until someone else imitates such glorified methods and then we can all act shocked, you know like how President Clinton praised a bombing he ordered that destroyed at least one school in Bosnia with unknown number of collateral damage and in the same day then expressed shock & regret over the Columbine massacre in the USA which was actually less violent with a lot less death than what he himself praised earlier, and willingly paid for by the parents of many who died at Columbine).

And I also see a HUGE difference between self-defense and vigilantism (something I've noticed many people can't see the difference between). Self-defense is about defending life & limb (and thus more love than hate), vigilantism is about revenge. Quick example, a guy in I think Oklahoma successfully used a gun (this was a rare time that the gun was actually fired in self-defense, usually even armed assailants run the moment they see a gun in the hands of their target) against gangsters who tried to rob his store, dropping one and the others running away. That was ok and I'm sure he would've never been charged. In his rage he chased the others outside which was definitely crossing the line, but adrenaline can make people act out so I think many can understand (so I could see him being charged, especially if he shot anyone in the back, but a jury would probably clear him in Oklahoma). However, he then came in after his gun was empty, got out more bullets, reloaded it, and then went to the fallen gangster and shot him as he lay unconscious (thus making sure he died) before calling 911. He forgot to turn his security cam off though and the police busted him for it, and for that a jury sent him to prison. Because he'd crossed the line from self-defense to vigilantism. Many of us do see a difference and most who promote self-defense do not promote vigilantism.

[Buffylo]

For those who think guns or more guns would cause more violence, please read this:

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/art...cle11.html

[72jay]

Yep I do believe people should be allowed to own & carry a gun (ofcourse only with the proper training/background checks/etc)
But also limits on some locations - like no guns in schools/etc

I think some situations situations that could warrant carrying would be if you lived/worked/etc in an unsafe (as far as crime/gangs/etc go) area

Personally I'd want the right to own a gun for protection... bot I also see no need for the average citizen to have a semi-auto firearm with a 100-round magazine - thats basically a military weapon (the only non-military use I could maybe see for that is someone hired (and trained/licenced) for border control

I would hope to never have to use a gun on someone. I also think that if you had to shoot someone - sure it might save your life, but (not even counting the legal issues) you're also gonna be mentally/emotionally f**ked for life by having seen/done that.

[Buffylo]

Yep I do believe people should be allowed to own & carry a gun (ofcourse only with the proper training/background checks/etc)
But also limits on some locations - like no guns in schools/etc

I think some situations situations that could warrant carrying would be if you lived/worked/etc in an unsafe (as far as crime/gangs/etc go) area

Personally I'd want the right to own a gun for protection... bot I also see no need for the average citizen to have a semi-auto firearm with a 100-round magazine - thats basically a military weapon (the only non-military use I could maybe see for that is someone hired (and trained/licenced) for border control

I would hope to never have to use a gun on someone. I also think that if you had to shoot someone - sure it might save your life, but (not even counting the legal issues) you're also gonna be mentally/emotionally f**ked for life by having seen/done that.

If CCW was permitted in schools, a lot less people would have died in places like columbine. Any time you put restrictions on where people can carry, you are saying "hey criminals, people in, going into, and coming out of this place can't fight back. take liberties with them as you please!"

It's just wrong.

[Genersis]

For those who think guns or more guns would cause more violence, please read this:

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com...article11.html

I don't think anyone's argued that.
*Checks site*
Yikes...
A load of baseless assersions.
Reported crimes have obviously gone up since 1900, including gun crimes.
Not to mention population growth.

And then due to the US producing one study on most crimes apparently being here in the UK than the US(First place i've ever heard THAT), apparently we can assume this is all thanks to guns.

The rest of it...
Wow, i didn't even scroll down till now...wish i hadn't.
What a steamer...

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Forget it, not worth the time i've already wasted, let alone bothering the rest of it.

A few highlights for fun:

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

(The opposite should of been done obviously)

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

(I wonder how a lack of gun stigma proves more guns=less crime)

Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.

(Do i sense paranoia?)

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.

(Got to tie to the US' founding fathers somehow. Patriotism adds ten points to an arguments validity you know.)

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable[I often see Christians complain that people support gay marriage because it's "fahionable" also] to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

(Clear...right...)

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.

European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

(Nazism already?
Also; mass gun ownership may of stopped the Holocaust and world war two.
I smell desperation.
Mass gun ownership apparently is able to stop just about all conflict. So does mass gun ownership=world peace?:tongue

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.

That's BS.
It doesn't increase it either. At least the article got that right.
Crimes will still be committed, their outcomes can change a fair bit by gun laws mind you.
Otherwise we'd see a correlation with less gun regulations and lower crime rates. We don't.

A whole article based on seeing links which aren't there.
Very sad...

[Genersis]

If CCW was permitted in schools, a lot less people would have died in places like columbine. Any time you put restrictions on where people can carry, you are saying "hey criminals, people in, going into, and coming out of this place can't fight back. take liberties with them as you please!"

It's just wrong.

Are you serious?:eek:

At what age is it appropriate for kids to carry guns?
I mean, before that age, they are practically saying "SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME!"
I guess all teachers and parents should be armed at those ages.

Sheesh.
This is almost as bad as victim blaming.
I guess the people at that batman screening were practically asking for their liberty and ergo lives to be taken, as they didn't carry any firearms?

[Buffylo]

I sense people who are more than ready to be the victim....


I feel for you. Your ideological world is one without guns and violence. Whether you like it or not, there will always be bad people out there. Whether caused by some mental defect, some twisted aversion in their life, or something else, they will ALWAYS exist.

If you are happy to sit by and be the victim, you do that. I can tell you right now disarmament will never happen in the United States of America so long as it remains as such; united. I will never surrender my firearms in my lifetime to any group or government, because to do that would be surrendering my level of equality.

Remember, without guns, you are left to your own devices. All it takes is two people who want you to do something, and you will be forced to do it. I hope one day you can see the purpose those tools serve in keeping your life safe...

[Buffylo]

Are you serious?:eek:

At what age is it appropriate for kids to carry guns?
I mean, before that age, they are practically saying "SHOOT ME! SHOOT ME!"
I guess all teachers and parents should be armed at those ages.

Sheesh.
This is almost as bad as victim blaming.
I guess the people at that batman screening were practically asking for their liberty and ergo lives to be taken, as they didn't carry any firearms?

When did I say kids? Way to jump to conclusions, chief...


There is no reason faculty members and other ADULTS should not be able to CCW in a school. None.