Guns! - I promised (yes it's rural related..)

TresCrows · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

"By spray deterent I was also thinking of of a pump up water pistol filled with a water ammonia combination. It works well on dogs when out cycling.
Painted the right color with an attached lazer light it could assume some pretty vicious characteristics.""

This is, like, a joke, right? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif J

Bob_Skurka · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

Don, in fact, people who defend themselves with guns (and sometimes that just means having it pointed without firing a shot) are hurt far less than those who defend themseleves in other ways.

As for the cop statement, we all have friends who are cops. Everyone has their own take on this from a personal point, but in state and national surveys of rank and file officers, most support concealed carry by citizens and most support private ownership of handguns. When you get to the political police officers in the big cities, you will find that surveys of those folks trend against concealed carry laws and private gun ownership. The surveys are posted in several places on the internet if you care to look them up. In shear numbers, however, police overwhelmingly support private gun ownership and by a pretty good margin support concealed carry laws for private citizens.

Regarding the fact that the site listed did not show the stories of the teenagers who stole grandpas gun. . . again, those stories make the papers everywhere and are also easy to find. I doubt you will find a site that is NOT biased one way or the other. The anti-gun crowd only posts their side of the story. The pro-gun crowd does a similar thing. The NRA is unique, while obviously pro-gun, it is also heavily attacked by the press and a well funded anti-gun lobby so the statistics and studies the NRA posts have to be checked, double-checked, and checked again to make sure their statements cannot be picked apart.

Your solution to registering guns and then holding the original owner responsible sometime down the line if the gun is ever used flies in the face of US law. Further, it presumes that lawful owners of objects are guilty of future crimes regarless of circumstances. Let's say I have a tractor and some punk kid steals it, runs it out on the road at night and is rear ended at high speed by driver who stole a car. . . using your logic, I am liable for the death of the kid who stole my tractor and the car owner is liable for the death of the punk who stole his car. No logic there. The tractor and the car were both legally owned. Further, lets say I sell my tractor to a new owner, who lawfully uses it for 10 years and then dies. His widow sells it to a pawn shop who sells it to someone who passes his mandatory 7 day waiting period to buy a tractor and then that guy uses the tractor to harvest wheat on land he does not own or lease, consequently he is guilty of theft. . . holding me, the original owner responsible is illogical, but that is essentially the case you are making with guns. And to say that if I didn't buy the tractor in the first place then the wheat would never have been stolen is not necessarily true, in fact it is not capable of being proved.

We all have our reasons for choosing to own or not own a gun. Many of us who own them firmly believe it is a legal and moral right. And many of us are very responsible citizens who follow the laws. And if you read through many of our posts, we also advocate that there are many other things to consider regarding safety before you come to the conclusion you want a gun. I got into shooting not from a safety perspective but from the sporting aspect. Others get into it in other ways. One thing we should all agree on is that we treat all of our tools and each other with respect.

I disagree with much of what you say. Legally and morally. But I respect your opinions never the less.

MossRoad · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

 Insulting those of us who have a different “logical” view of the world aside, if you choose not to have a gun for protection, that is entirely up to you and I have no problem with it. 

If you have no problem with it why did you take it as an insult? Hmmm? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Most of the police officers that I have spoken with and that are interviewed on local TV or in the newspaper discourage people from trying to use a gun to protect themselves or their property. They all say you are better off giving it up than putting up a fight. That is the first thing they tell you in every self defense class. That is the first thing they tell you in every home security class. And, that is the first thing they tell all the senior citizens. And, when occasionally, some brave citizen makes a stand and blows the bad guy away, the officers invariably are quoted as saying something very similar to this: "While I'm happy that it turned out OK for the good guy, most people are better off giving the criminal what they want. They stand a better chance of getting out alive doing that." And most of the officers get the willies when thinking of everyone licensed to carry a concealed weapon. You get pulled over here and the officer asks if you got any weapons on you, you answer yes, you gonna get your face in the dirt and cuffed real fast, permit or no permit. Not until they feel safe. Who could blame them? Not me. They don't feel comfortable with the concealed weapons laws and they wish they were tighter and/or required classes and mental screening before some one is granted a permit(no screening required in Indiana last I checked. You apply with local law enforcement and you get it. One small town police chief denies all requests for permits automatically. You then appeal to the state and they grant you the permit. They have to give it to you if they don't have a reason not too. This keeps the local town out of legal liability if the permitted does something stupid.... they didn't grant him the permit, the state did.)

As you have said, the officers that you know say opposite. I believe you. The facts that you quote.. I read them too. I also believe Okeedon's way of thinking and the logic he used to get there.

As for my opinion on Okeedon leaving his doors open... he's taking an un-needed risk, but he's not living in fear. I can't decide if it is admirable or nuts. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif We use to do that too until all the neighbors got their stuff taken and/or confronted by bad guys in their homes. We wizened up after a while. Good luck to him. I don't have the guts to leave my doors unlocked when I'm away or home, but asleep. Heck, in our old neighborhood, if you left the window open at night, you were guaranteed a visitor to steal a purse or VCR. We went for the motion lights and alarm system. It worked well and we were able to sleep with the windows partially open until the invention of the boom box. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif And the cost of the alarm system was less than the cost of a good, quality firearm.

To each his own, I guess. Good luck to you and yours. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MossRoad · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

 I disagree with much of what you say. Legally and morally. But I respect your opinions never the less. 

Well said, Bob.

OkeeDon · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

 I disagree with much of what you say. Legally and morally. But I respect your opinions never the less 

The ironic thing, Bob, is that I don't disagree with anything you've said. I have strong feelings about taking responsibility for one's actions, and I'm glad to have had an opportunity to state them. My "suggestion" about ultimate responsibility is obviously a moral one, because I'm as aware that it could not take place in our legal structure.

The question of the ultimate responsibility for tractors and cars is, I believe, a little misplaced, based on the original intent of the use of the item. I'm sure you know what I mean. But, we can agree to disagree.

I'll continue to guide my own actions by my beliefs, and I'll never hold it against anyone else to do the same. Even though you disagree with me, I appreciate the respect I have received here. That's what makes this such a great forum.

OkeeDon · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

 As for my opinion on Okeedon leaving his doors open... he's taking an un-needed risk, but he's not living in fear. I can't decide if it is admirable or nuts. 

Laziness. And, a certain amount of common sense. For years, we were comparatively safe because the kids' bcycles, etc., left outside, told potential miscreants that there was no money in that house. And, even today, most of our neighbors' house look much more attractive and vulnerable than ours. Around here, the number one crime is stealing from houses under construction (a lot of them!) and number two is breaking into cars. According to the police reports, peeping toms are up near the top of the list. But, there are very few house break ins, and the ones that do occur are apparently well-cased, because they tend to break into houses that are not occupied for some length of time -- vacations or winter-only residents. Criminals don't want to get caught, not do they want to be confronted by homeowners. There are such easy pickings elsewhere, they don't really bother folks like us. Of course, there are sickos, but even they tend to go to apartment and condo locations with elderly folks instead of us young guys (63 years young).

So, the bottom line, I guess, is that we really don't live in fear. We don't have time to worry about stuff like that. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen whether there's a locked door or not. Nothing is foolproof. I laughed at a friend who had locks all over his wood frame house; showed him a report of thieves who used a chain saw to cut their own door through siding and emptied the place. I have a fence, but anyone with a 4WD could drive through it.

If someone did walk in, it would not be because our door is unlocked, but because they wanted something we have. They wouldn't know the door is unlocked when they chose the place. and they would have made up their mind to gain entrance, assuming the door was locked. After all, who doesn't lock their door? My wife and I are both very sound sleepers. If we bothered to think about it one way or the other, we would wish they got what they wanted without disturbing us. We can replace TVs and computers, but a lost night's sleep is gone forever.

I know I seem to making light of all this, but the simple fact is that it just doesn't matter. They can have whatever they want. If they want us, then it's our time. So far, they haven't wanted us, and haven't wanted anything in our house. The car and the truck are different stories - they've been broken into more than once.

A few weeks ago, my tractor fell into a 10' deep hole and flipped over with me underneath it. Neither the tractor nor myself suffered any damage, but it could easily have gone the other way. There are any number of ways I could have been killed that day. What good would all the home security in the world done me in that case?

fishman · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

The question of the ultimate responsibility for tractors and cars is, I believe, a little misplaced, based on the original intent of the use of the item. I'm sure you know what I mean. But, we can agree to disagree.

A tractor is a tool or a toy, depending on what it's being used for, just like a gun. I think Bob is right on the money with his analogy.

Unfortunately, some folks think that the only use for a gun is to shoot someone else. I've got a few myself and use them frequently, but fortunately I haven't ever found myself in the predicament of having to shoot someone.

Playing on my tractor or busting some clay birds, both are fun and relaxing. Gonna do a little duck hunting this weekend as well. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

fishman · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

Don, you posted this, among other things, while I was typing:

They can have whatever they want. If they want us, then it's our time.

That's pretty defeatest, don't you think? They say god helps those who help themselves. I seriously doubt that those closest to you would be very happy about your lack of attention to your own safety. As I get older I realize that I need to take care of myself, not for me, but for those that care for me or need me.

Please lock your doors. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Bob_Skurka · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

 The question of the ultimate responsibility for tractors and cars is, I believe, a little misplaced, based on the original intent of the use of the item. I'm sure you know what I mean. But, we can agree to disagree. 

Don, as someone who entered the gun culture from the sporting side, I would have to say that the original intent of my gun purchases has almost always been some sort of target shooting. I used to hunt, I suppose animals are also a form of target, and I do have a gold inlayed Winchester turkey gun, so I suppose the original intent of that gun is what? Not to kill people! And my wife got a matched set of custom made/engraved 45 ACP target pistols for our 5th anniversary (and yes we are still married) so the original intent of those is what?

How exactly are we to determine the original intent of the item, and who will be the one determining that? 

I think I can make a pretty strong moral case, based on the Old Testiment (Jewish), New Testiment (Christian) as well as several other notable books we base morality on (undergraduate minor in religon at Wabash College, thought about entering a seminary but went into business instead). So even the moral issue you raise is contrary to the moral issues I will raise. Those aside, my bigger question still is your statement regarding the INTENT OF THE USE OF THE ITEM.

I never purchased any of my guns with the intent to kill anyone. Nor did I purchase any of my guns with the intent to have them as defensive weapons. However, after owning some, I did decided that some would make nice defensive weapons. And I did have some modified to enhance their abiltiy for both sport and for defense. But that is not the original intent.

And since most of my weapons are sporting based, wouldn't the manufacturer's intent have been to make the weapon for sport (targets or hunting or recreational shooting)?

OkeeDon · Dec 4, 2003

Re: Guns! - I promised (yes it\'s rural related..)

I didn't spell out what I meant. But, since you brought it up, the purpose of a gun is not necessarily to shoot someone else, but it is to shoot something -- be it a paper target, clay bird, duck, or person. When you go duck hunting, you're using the gun for it's intended purpose -- to kill something. When you shoot at a target, you're just practicing. I know that's an oversimplication, but I could go into a lot more detail about how target shooting originated with the military, how a clay pigeon is like shooting flying birds, about how the olympic winter shooting sport is similar to a winter military exercise, etc.

If the designed purpose of a tractor was to kill something, you'd have a point. But, heck, I can kill someone with a comb, even though it wasn't designed for that. A gun has no other useful purpose.