Loud Dogg
May 11, 2004, 01:03 AM
I’m writing on a new thread because I want it to be on a slightly different topic.
Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?
Because it makes much sense if that is so. I now DO see why guns are what they are and why people enjoy them.

There is one quote that I would like to say:
"An eye for an eye would leave the world bind"

When someone kills a lady. Should he be killed?

If you enjoyed reading about "afraid?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
May 11, 2004, 01:10 AM
I can't answer the poll. I can say that a woman was recently killed here. Murder for profit. She was raped, beaten, driven over by a pick up and lived. She begged. The killers sat in her truck and talked and smoked until she died. What DO you suggest we do with animals like that?

Don't Tread
May 11, 2004, 01:10 AM
you need to be more specific, are you talking murder or self-defense?

Assuming murder, Yes, if it is known for a fact that he killed a lady in cold blood he should be killed on the spot.

4v50 Gary
May 11, 2004, 01:10 AM
Well, depending on the circumstances, I'd vote yes or no. If a man kills a woman because he is depraved, yes. If a man kills a woman because he had to defend his life, no.

Now, in response to your question whether I'm afraid and that's why I own handguns. No. If I was afraid and had to protect myself, I'd use my rifle instead of any of my handguns. I own guns because I enjoy collecting them. I own guns because I enjoy shooting. I own guns because I enjoy studying their mechanism. I own guns because it gives me great pleasure to enjoy the company of my family and friends. I own guns because I'm an American and I can.

Fear? Nahhh.

May 11, 2004, 01:11 AM
What man and which woman? ;)

May 11, 2004, 01:14 AM
Did he kill her or did he murder her?

There is a big difference.

If he killed her, then it was either accidental or morally justifiable (like self-defense or third-party defense). I personally don't think this man should be sentenced anything, as he'd likely have a boatload of greif and trauma to deal with for the rest of his life.

If he murdered her, then hell yes he should die. I'm a big believer in the death penalty because I don't like paying taxes so that scumbag murderers can live more comfortably than I can.

I didn't vote because I need to know an answer first.


Gordon Fink
May 11, 2004, 01:16 AM
Loud Dogg, I will give you a classic answer to your rather muddled question. It depends …

Ownership of firearms is not about fear, in my case at least. It’s about responsibility. So you might say that I own guns for much the same reason that I don’t litter.

~G. Fink

May 11, 2004, 01:18 AM
Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?No.

The reason why people refuse to own guns themselves is because they are scared.

Antis know they would be irresponsible if they owned a firearm. They believe everyone else is as irresponsible as they are so everyone must be disarmed.

May 11, 2004, 01:24 AM
Not sure what you're trying to get at with the poll, but there's not enough to go on there. The issue of capital punishment, if that's what you're getting at, is completely separate from that of weapons. Perhaps a better question might address willingness to kill a man to prevent him from killing a woman.

As for whether people are scared, I would say that some do own them because they are scared. Whenever bad event occur, people buy guns. When September 11th happened, gun sales went up. It's not logical, and highly unlikely that a gun would be useful in most terrorist situations we might see any time soon, but that response DOES occur. It is also probably not the best condition to be in when reasoning to own a weapon. I would prefer weapons owners to make an informed decision and learn before reflexively getting one.

On this forum, however, I would guess that you will find a different attitude than fear.

For me, I practice self-reliance. I love outdoor skills, primitive living, and learning to get by on my own. To me, guns are tools. I am also mechanically inclined and enjoy them from the designs and precision that goes into being able to contain such power with enough precision to reproduce an effect consistantly. Think about're can hold a contained explosion forcing a mass at the same point on a paper target. Really pretty mechanically and chemically amazing...

Gordon Fink
May 11, 2004, 01:31 AM
Jim makes an excellent point! Fear keeps many people away from firearms. Among other things, fear delayed me from taking more responsibility as a husband and as a citizen. I waited until I was 30 years old before I bought my first gun. I was afraid firearms might be too dangerous (thanks to rampant propaganda) and that they might be stolen by a dangerous criminal.

~G. Fink

May 11, 2004, 01:34 AM
Do you wear the seatbelt in your car because you are "afraid" or because you prudently want to be prepared and protect yourself as much as possible should you ever become involved in an automobile accident?

In addition the hunting/collecting/fun/plinking/competition/2nd Amendment reasons for gun ownership, I own and carry a gun not because I am "afraid" but because I wish to be prepared should it ever become necessary to defend myself or my family from a criminal attack.

The very same reason a police officer carries a gun, so he can defend himself in the event he is attacked. Which of us is more likely to be attacked by a criminal, a police officer wearing a uniform, carrying a radio, baton, flashlight, pepper spray, stun gun and other items or me, alone and apparently unarmed? Yet on top of all that, a police officer still carries a gun and we would think him foolish if he didn't. So is it foolish for me to likewise want that protection?

It has nothing to do with "an eye for an eye" or any other kind of punishment. I have no desire to shoot someone and it is not my job to chase criminals and determine their fate. Legally and morally, I can only shoot someone only if it is necessary to prevent the "immediate" death or severe bodily injury of myself or another. If I draw my weapon and the bad guy turns and runs, I let him go. He isn't a threat to me any longer.

It is estimated that between 200,000 to 500,000 Americans use a firearm in just this manner every year. The presence of the firearm alone was enough to make the bad guy stop the attack and run away. Not shots fired, no one hurt.

May 11, 2004, 01:35 AM
Loud Dogg,

Q. Should a person take medicine?

A. Do they need it?

May 11, 2004, 01:49 AM
I defende you in your last thread but you are starting to sound more and more like a troll.
And very similar to a guy named antiflagguy

Jim March
May 11, 2004, 02:02 AM
Ah. The classic assumption anti-gunners always make.

What the heck do I have to be afraid of? I'm better armed than 98% of the people around me :D.

OK, classic question: which kind of dog is more likely to bite, a Saint Bernard of 130 pounds, or a toy poodle less than 5?

Yup. The little one. Why? Because it's scared of damned near everything. The big dog can walk up to strangers without fear, tail wagging, knowing that if the stranger turns out to be a turd they can just kick their ass :cool:.

We as intelligent human beings get to CHOOSE which one to be. We get to decide whether or not to fear the world around us, criminals in particular, or to be intelligently and reasonably armed just in case we meet a turd on two legs...or four.

Ever known people who don't stop for others who break down on the freeway or whatever, because they could be robbers, rapists or worse?

I stop all the time. I've lost count of the number of people I've bailed out of trouble. Several dozen over the years...the wildest: just as I pulled over and walked up to this dude wrenching on his truck, he got his fuel line disconnected from his carb so he could clean the fuel filter, except that the gas hit the hot engine and burst into flames. Lucky for him I was driving an old VW bug, and as those tend to "flambe" once in a while, I had a fire extinguisher and knew where it was. I got to it and put out the fire before it could do damage...we managed to get that truck running again and I tailed him until he got to town.

Why do I stop?

Because I don't have to be afraid of whoever I meet, even in remote areas.

So the remaining question is:

"Why do you choose to be a toy poodle?"

May 11, 2004, 02:10 AM
The poll is conceived poorly. That said, I think that antis tend to be people of less than stellar charactor and pro gun types tend to be of strong charactor.

Tom Servo
May 11, 2004, 02:11 AM
No. I think fear is the worst reason to acquire a lethal instrument, just as it's the wrong reason to learn martial arts.

I think the most afraid I've ever been was when I was robbed at gunpoint while armed. I was taking a store deposit to the bank, and the guy came up behind me from between two parked cars. He stuck the barrel into my kidney, less than two inches above the butt of my gun. I'm sure if he'd known I was armed, he would have killed me for it.

Strangely enough, I was able to hand the bag over to him with a steady hand and inform him that a) it wasn't my money and b) insurance would cover it anyway. He seemed satisfied with this, and took off. For a few seconds, though, it was obvious that my life was in the hands of a random crackhead, and I had absolutely no tactical options.

For the next few days, I caught myself jumping at shadows, and my hand seemed to hover over my sidearm constantly, so since one of my co-workers also carried, I decided to put it away for awhile until I could get myself together. The idea that I might over-react to something innocuous and take a human life without cause...that's what scared me.

That said, I know too many people who don't like guns one bit and carry them because they're afraid. These folks may or may not spend just enough time at the range to be able to handle a gun competently, but they make me nervous. As for me, I enjoy shooting, and the fact that something I love also offers protection...well, that's just serendipity.

May 11, 2004, 02:46 AM
Can't vote, I have to answer "It depends"...

And as others have said, the gun is just in case, just like car insurance, life insurance, health insurance... dang, that's a lot of insurance we need in life!

May 11, 2004, 03:05 AM
Hi Loud Dog !

I would guess that fear does enter into the equation for some. It realy isn't that simple however because typically there is a host of reasons to both own and to carry a gun. Fear of being harmed is certainly part of the reason for at least some.
To expect the police to protect you and your family from crime is not realistic. They can't be everywhere all the time. They are pretty good at solving crimes but have only limited effect for prevention.

Then there is the shooting sports which give gun owns as much pleasure as bowlers and golfers and whatever turns someones crank for entertainment.

For me , part of the decision to be armed remains the same as it did for Thomas Jefferson, and James Adams, and the others who drafted our constitution with the forsight to include the 2nd amendment. It is about personal FREEDOM !!!

A freedom that is all to often in jepordy by criminals as well as governments. After all - they had just won theirs from the British and realized that all governments can be corrupted over time to a point where individuals loose their freedoms. They didn't want that to happen to this country. They wanted the power to remain with the people . They also wanted the people (individuals) to be able to defend those freedoms from all who would jepordize them .

May 11, 2004, 03:22 AM
No not afraid

May 11, 2004, 03:22 AM
Jim March stated it more eloquently than I can.

If I'm armed well enough to defend myself, what do I have to fear?

May 11, 2004, 03:57 AM
As a foolish youth, I put myself in many situations I was not trained to handle. By luck I have come out unscathed. Fear does not come into my ownership of guns. Only the fear of making a mistake and having another person get hurt. That fear makes me double and triple check things.
A question phrased that way (for the poll) can allow the questioner to interpet the answer anyway they want.
If the majority say yes, then gun owners are bloodthirsty and indiscrimate in the taking of life.
If no, then we have bad judgement and stereotype. We shoot based on how "scary" somebody looks and we are easily threatened by others.
I am not accusing you of this, but want to point out problems with phrasing.

May 11, 2004, 04:40 AM
The reason why people refuse to own guns themselves is because they are scared.

Antis know they would be irresponsible if they owned a firearm. They believe everyone else is as irresponsible as they are so everyone must be disarmed. dingdingdingding

May 11, 2004, 05:45 AM
What DO you suggest we do with animals like that? Those are the key words. Most people have no idea what these "animals" are like and their behavior can and is a day-to-day thing. Working in a prison I know that educating and counseling them has no usefull effect. If it bothers you then we won't execute them (justice) but settle on keeping them locked-up for the rest of their useful lives (expensive). They are in fact vermin and human failures, it happens.

May 11, 2004, 08:40 AM
Are you trying to connect the killing of a lady with fear? I do not understand the question.

May 11, 2004, 09:02 AM
When people say "Fear" regarding guns, they generally mean tinfoil hat type paranoid of the governement, cowering in the corner, afraid of every creak in the house, afraid of every stranger type fear.

I will state for the record, that I do fear. Not the way described above though.

I fear house fires, which is why I have smoke detectors.
I fear being in a car crash, which is why I wear a seatbelt and drive defensively.

Pretty reasonable so far, yes? Pretty much what the average person fears.

I fear being placed in a situation in which someone is gonna kill me. I won't be placed there voluntarily, that situation has to come to me. That's why it's important to me to have a tool that might help in that situation.

So what's the difference between being afraid of being killed in a house fire vs. being killed by a robber? :) And taking that to tools, why is a fire extinguisher "common sense", and a gun not? :)


May 11, 2004, 09:14 AM
The poll gives no correct option.
Therefore is cannot be accurately answered.

The sex of the shooter versus the sex of the shootee should have absolutely no bearing on guilt or innocence.

If the shooter was in fear of their life or grevious bodily harm then the shooting is justified.

A real Gentleman would never have the need to shoot a real Lady.
So the question is moot. :neener:

May 11, 2004, 09:15 AM
The reason antis don't own guns is irrational fear. You should be asking this question on some place like demokratic underground.

May 11, 2004, 09:21 AM
There is one quote that I would like to say:
"An eye for an eye would leave the world bind"

Again more flawed logic. :rolleyes:

An eye for an eye finishes it. "Justice" has then been served.
It's akin to both sides of the equation balancing each other.
-1 + -1 = -2

If another eye is taken afterwards, then it becomes revenge and not justice.

May 11, 2004, 09:27 AM
Loud Dogg,

You're post is really too scattered to make a lot of sense. Your topic says "afraid?" but then your poll and your question are kind of two different things. Is it about guns? Is it about the death penalty? Most of us who carry don't carry for fear or vengeance and it's not about shooting someone who has done you wrong. Personally I was raised around guns and grew up shooting. My uncle has been a law enforcement officer and department shooting instructor all my life and has taught me a lot about shooting and my dad is a safety professional and a shooter so of course his focus with me has been gun safety. This naturally progressed into me carrying a gun. If I have guns and I know them through and through and could use them to protect my wife from being raped or murdered then why not carry a gun? The point of it though is to PROTECT, not to seek vengeance. If someone is threatening the life of myself or my wife then I will do whatever I can to stop that threat. Why shouldn't I? Should one just lay down and be killed or watch someone else be killed? That is the act of a coward. I do not walk around in fear. I just put the gun on and sort of forget about it...not that I forget that it's there but I just don't really think about it. If I ever need it (God forbid) it's there.

An eye for an eye might leave a world blind but if we would all make an effort to stop the hand before it reaches the eye then we'll all be seeing just fine because all the eye pokers will have broken fingers. :P

brad cook

May 11, 2004, 09:59 AM
I'll try to take this question to the most base level , I am there and I have a gun , the woman is already dead and I know who did it but he is not intent on harming me or anyone else, then yes he should be killed , by a Judge , Jury and ultimately the gas chamber or electric chair. You see by law I would in most jurisdictions not be justified in shooting this man because the immediate threat had passed and no one else was in imminent danger. At that point it is up to the Justice system to kill him.

Now change the circumstance a bit from your question , I am there with a gun and the woman is not dead yet , but the offender is in the process of killing her , then absoloutely I should shoot him to try and preserve the life of the woman and neutralize the threat.

You want clear answers to how law abiding gun toters will act in a given situation then you have to give clear and well thought out scenarios/questions. Ray

May 11, 2004, 01:51 PM
There is one quote that I would like to say:
"An eye for an eye would leave the world b[l]ind"

No. The only ones who would be blind are those who did not learn the correct lesson after the loss of their FIRST eye.

We are not in the business of hunting down criminals and bringing them to justice. That is a task for the courts and those who enforce our laws.

Allow me to pose a question to you LoudDogg. Let us say you are in a store, or on the street somewhere and are approached by a person who points a gun at your head and robs you. Then this person decides that you are a possible witness and you must die. How would you view a fellow armed citizen, who witnessed the entire episode and defended YOU by killing the criminal who would have just killed you? Do you see a distinction between those two people? You should.

May 11, 2004, 02:35 PM
I recently used to be a strong proponent of capital punishment. I am no longer in support of it as it stands. I am not against killing the guilty, I am against killing the innocent.

Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully. It happens. Not often, but it happens. When a mistake is discovered, a wrongfully convicted man may be released to pick up the pieces of his shattered life. Capital Punishment is about revenge and punishment. The State which kills a person may not un-kill him.

I could be in favor of Capital Punishment if that verdict is made after a more strict criteria is examined. Right now we have "reasonable" doubt. I would propably be in support of a death penalty in the case of unquestionable guilt. If there is no other slightly possible answer, then death (revenge) may be warranted.

This is an entirely seperate issue from using firearms to protect yourself. Killing a man who may be guilty does not protect a single life. Using a firearm to defend your life, preserves the innocent. It is noble.

Vern Humphrey
May 11, 2004, 03:00 PM
The poll indicates a mindset that is difficult to penetrate. It makes certain assumptions that have to be accepted in order to answer it.

Let me start out by saying I have killed men -- I served two tours and a bit more in Viet Nam. I have two Purple Hearts, so I know what it's like to be on the receiving end.

Am I afraid? No, not in any sense you would recognize. I understand and appreciate danger -- from fire, from traffic accidents, from disease, and from criminals. I take precautions to deal with all of these -- but I do not get into my car with fear and trembling, I do not break out into a cold sweat when I light the fireplace.

In dangerous situations, I rely on myself first and foremost. I carry tools and a first aid kit in my car, have a fire extinguisher in the house, and carry a gun. I am confident in my ability to deal with about anything that comes up, because I am ready and properly equipped.

I am NOT confident that some government agent will swoop down and save me in danger. The police, ambulance, or fire department may not get here in time, so I prepare to protect myself.

Should someone who kills a lady be killed?

What does that mean? Do you want to know if I would kill someone I saw kill someone else? Or do you ask about the death penalty?

If I saw a murder take place in front of me, I'd act. If I believed my life or that of others was in immediate jeopardy, I'd use appropriate force.

As has been pointed out by several posters, you do not shoot to kill -- you shoot to stop. When the threat is neutralized, you stop shooting.

May 11, 2004, 03:11 PM
You are confusing justice with self defense. Shooting someone in self defense is not a form of justice. So I'm not sure why you're mixing up issues of carrying firearms with death penalty issues. They are entirely distinct and have nothing to do with each other. Even someone who is against the death penalty may still find themselves in a situation where they must use deadly force.

May 11, 2004, 03:18 PM
Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully.

I will assume that this is just a result of hurried composition. If not, please go take a remedial civics class, immediately!:D

May 11, 2004, 03:33 PM
Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?

yes, but i'm not 'scared' in the sense that you assume me to be.
i'm not jumping at every shadow or bump in the night.
i'm not pulling the trigger on people who ask me for spare change.
i'm not fearful because i'm paranoid.

what i am afraid of is not being able to lawfully defend my life or defend someone elses.
what i am afraid of is becoming a victim to a determined criminal.

that FEAR however, sparked a sense of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in myself (and probably everyone else who posts here that supports the right to self defense).

i have dealt with my fears. if i didnt, i'd hole myself up in my home and never leave the house. instead, i get out of my home, and walk with a sense of heightened awareness. i know there are situations i may find myself in that i may not be able to escape unharmed. i may even be killed. i might not even get the chance to draw my weapon.

but since there are far more defensive uses against violent crime by use of a firearm each year than there are murders, suicides, accidental firearm discharges, i know that i have a greater chance of survival just by having this non-victim-mindset.

May 11, 2004, 03:47 PM
Yes, an eye for an eye. No if ands or buts about it with me. You inflict suffering unto another, you get the same suffering back. I don't care if it is through karma, the justice system, the wrath of a higher power, or the victim (or victims family). Do unto others as you have done unto you.

Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?

Not everyone. I own guns because it is my constitutionally protected god given liberty to. Also Logic dictates that if criminals don't play by the rules and can get a $15 pistol from their local dope dealer.... I should go to my local FFL dealer and level the playing field.
An Armed man is a secure, polite, disciplined man. (or woman).

May 11, 2004, 04:11 PM
Loud Dogg,

First, seeing how so many good folks here have offered excellent counter arguements/disgussion/opinions on your first thread, why don't you go back there and finish up what you started?

Second, as most have pointed out, your poll is flawed.

Third. The "fear" thing. Well, you admit to being 15 years old. I would like to assume that you are basically a good young man even though your current opinion on gun ownership is probably 180 degrees out of phase with most on this board. For argument's sake I'll figure you to be good.

The one problem with most "good" people is this that they can't fathom how bad "bad" people can really be.

Take my wife for example. For years I tried to get her to carry a revolver for protection on her way to work. She would have none of it no matter how much I tried. She disliked guns from the the get-go. She worked for years as an emergency room nurse. One morning she came home scared/crying and all she said was "Get me a pistol, show me how to shoot it and I'll get a permit to carry it." That night she treated what was left of a family that had been home invaded. Particularly ghastly scene. I will spare details, but this family's children saw rape, sodomy and murder of one of the parents. My wife vowed to never let that happen if she can help it.

There are "boogeymen". Problem is they look just like us. Nice to know that you have something that they don't like.

May 11, 2004, 04:15 PM
What about if a woman murders a man, should she be executed?

I'd love to live in a place where people are always nice to one another, but sadly we're in the real world here. Things happen, people get murdered, people get executed. As BluesBear said, and I quote, the sex of the shooter versus the sex of the shootee should have absolutely no bearing on guilt or innocence.

May 11, 2004, 04:17 PM
I recently used to be a strong proponent of capital punishment. I am no longer in support of it as it stands. I am not against killing the guilty, I am against killing the innocent.

Our prisons occassionally convict wrongfully. It happens. Not often, but it happens. When a mistake is discovered, a wrongfully convicted man may be released to pick up the pieces of his shattered life. Capital Punishment is about revenge and punishment. The State which kills a person may not un-kill him.The anti-death penalty crowd cannot cite a single instance of an innocent person being put to death in the United States. Neither can you. It seems that you have fallen for the anti-death penalty agendists' propaganda.

Cases can be cited in other countries such as 49 Rillington Place, in Britain, wherein the widow of a murdered woman confessed to her murder and was hanged. It was not until the real murderer was apprehended that he was absolved and his body exhumed and interred in hallowed ground.

You know, that used to be part of the punishment. The judges used to say "You will be removed to a place of execution where you will be <enter descriptive phraseology on specific execution style> until you are dead; your body will then to be taken and buried in unhallowed ground. May God have mercy on your soul." Nowadays, the family recovers the body and has it buried wherever they please.

There have been many instances of lynchings of innocents in America. The Ox Bow Incident comes readily to mind. But the anti-death penalty agendists cannot cite a single instance of the state doing any such thing.

As for the justice/vengence argument over the death penalty? It is for vengence. It is done in the guise of justice but justice requires more than the simple removal of the perp from the sphere of influence.

Thodse who are convicted of non-capital crimes have a chance to respond to their crimes. They are made to work foir the benefit of society during their incarceration. Death penalty inmates do nothing while in captivity but wait.

Lesser criminals can get out and reoffend. Not so with capital offenders. If they are predisposed to committing the ultimate crime, they should be removed forever by the surest means possible to assure they never have an opportunity again.

So in the context of the death penalty it is vengence that is sought, not justice; and I am very much okay with that.

May 11, 2004, 04:22 PM
What about if a woman murders a man, should she be executed?Ask BARBARA GRAHAM (

Or read THIS PAGE ( called Women who kill.

Vern Humphrey
May 11, 2004, 05:50 PM
The anti-death penalty crowd cannot cite a single instance of an innocent person being put to death in the United States.

Death penalty cases (for better or for worse) are the BEST justice we have. People facing the death penalty have all sorts of special protection (such as automatic appeals, etc.)

If innocent people are being convicted in death penalty cases, how many MORE are being convicted in lesser cases?

Who says we are executing innocent people is saying, willie-nillie, that the Emperor has no clothes -- our entire justice system has failed.

And if he believes THAT, the moral imperative is not just to end the death penalty and walk off feeling good -- it is to revamp the ENTIRE justice system from top to bottom.

How many death penalty opponents do you see working on that?

When they start pushing for a complete overhaul of the justice system, THEN I'll believe they're sincere.

May 11, 2004, 07:17 PM
Why do I Smell a Troll...?:scrutiny:

Standing Wolf
May 11, 2004, 07:18 PM
I refuse to live in fear.

Dave R
May 11, 2004, 07:57 PM
Loud Dogg, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why some of us choose to carry a gun.

I voted "no", if a man kills a lady, he should not necessarily be killed. He should be tried, and sentence passed. If the sentence is death, that is the law. If the sentence is life in prison, that's fine. (If he is released again in 5 years, and kills again, that is NOT fine.)

The gun should not be used to kill the man who killed the woman, after the fact.

The gun should be used BY THE WOMAN to prevent the man from killing her in the first place.

90% of the time, when a criminal finds out the victim is armed, the attack ceases immediately. 90% of the time, when a victim draws a gun on a criminal, the gun is not fired. The criminal is smart enough to stop and leave. My opinion is, only in those cases where the criminal is not rational--maybe because of drugs or heavy alcohol intoxication or blind rage--will the criminal continue the attack on an armed victim.

So the gun exists to STOP THE ATTACK. Most of the time, it works as a deterrent. A few times, the victim must shoot the attacker to stop the attack. That is a terrible thing, but the right of self defense is the most basic of human rights.

May 11, 2004, 09:57 PM
I can't cast a vote because I don't understand the poll. If you are not a troll, and I am not saying you are, you need to get back on here and explain yourself. You are obviously trying to make some sort of point to someone but I am not sure who. Also, according to your profile you are 15 years old. If that is true you should be very proud of yourself for finding this forum and asking these questions. I'm serious. I hope you find reasonable answers. Please, come back and explain your poll. As far as your fear question, I never live in fear for myself. However, I am very concerned about the well being of my wife, friends, and family.


Loud Dogg
May 12, 2004, 02:26 AM
I heard this claim that people who own guns think quickly in giving justice to someone. ) Imp not taking sides. But I am trying to figure out how both sides win and loose at the same time.

I understand it as this: if stricter rules and licenses where made then both sides would be more satisfied.

Loud Dogg
May 12, 2004, 02:27 AM
I ment the vote to be like that.

May 12, 2004, 04:11 AM
I understand it as this: if stricter rules and licenses where made then both sides would be more satisfied Not entirely true. There are several problems with licensing.
First, it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. By definition, criminals do not follow the rules and willfully break the ones that take away an advantage. As a sidenote, if you examine the ever popular car example, there are many (very many) unlicensed drivers out there.
Second, many rules are arbitrary. Whereas driver's licensing tests ability to drive and recognize signs, gun licensing tends to measure hours in a classroom. I personally have spent more time researching safety and usage than any class will add up to. Does anybody really need more than good safety skills, mental balance, and lack of criminal intent to own a gun? If so, what?
Licensing will certainly not measure my ability to restrain my temper or future criminal behavior.
Third, it is actually a fairly simple matter to build a limited use gun. You actually cannot ban the technology. Anybody who wants to put in the effort can do this.
Fourth: Such licensing can (and has) been used to keep guns out of the hands of arbitrary groups. So, for instance, before Krystalnacht Nazi's would want to remove guns from the hands of Jews, Gypsies, and Gays et. al.
At the very least, it keeps guns out of the hands of people who probably need it the most - those honest people who live in poor neighborhoods. Those areas have the most violent crime, yet the honest residents there have the least ability to buy a gun.

As for something else you asked: Fear is not a reason to do things. It leads to very bad decisions. There are obvious times when this is not true, but as a long term motivation, it is very poor. Also, to say that it is an understandable reason to own a gun is to say that it is understandable, but paranoid and irrational - just the type of person who shouldn't own a gun.

Zedicus said:Why do I Smell a Troll...? I don't thinks so, though I may be wrong. Most trolls would't spend the time to post nine times. His posts do show evidence of reading at least some of the posts placed in responce to his threads. Even it it is, why not respond in an informative and level headed manner? In otherwords take it at face value. Nothing is really lost.

cracked butt
May 12, 2004, 08:15 AM
Is the reason why people own guns themselves because they are scared?

Nope. I enjoy shiny things that go BOOM or make other loud noises and love to tinker with the things.


Dave R
May 12, 2004, 01:46 PM
Loud Dogg, here's a story that illustrates my earlier point.

The gun should NOT be used to kill the attacker, after the fact. The gun should be used by the WOMAN to prevent her attack in the first place.

Here's the story.

If you enjoyed reading about "afraid?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!