Ethics of gun ownership

[jeff3]

For your viewing pleasure.

Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth

This gets into specific things that are irrelevant to this discussion but the data on crime and guns as a deterrent is there. References are given and lots of the sources are actually known to be anti-gun (like the ATF) so it's not just a bunch of "gun nuts" putting together propaganda.

I'll look for some more high profile studies, this is an old argument and actually there is lots of data, it just doesn't support the ant-gun position so it never makes the front page of the liberal driven media.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I suppose it is based on the way you interpret freedom. You have freedom to own a gun, I have freedom from people owning guns. Given the choice I choose freedom from.

No you don't. You'd only have freedom from people owning guns legally.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Just as a side note, more people are killed and die from alcohol related deaths and illnesses by far in the US, but I just don't hear a lot squawking about banning ETOH, just the evil guns.

Really.. who wants to ban guns exactly?

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by carenkh

It's tricky, because I also think by owning a gun, you're perpetuating the need for guns, and ammunition, and I don't like the energy of those things. It feels like the gun would be making up for a perceived lack: I'm not enough by myself, I need this metal thing that can kill instantly.

You could see it as more people being prepared to defend themselves in an emergency, instead of relying on a police centric government.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

You could see it as more people being prepared to defend themselves in an emergency, instead of relying on a police centric government.

I honestly hadn't seen that before! Thanks, Dan - I think I just heard my brain expand a little bit.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

How many people successfully use a gun for self defense each year in the US?

Frequently enough. You just don't generally hear about it. (not newsworthy except locally.)

Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It similar to the discussion about military spending. By discussion about the ethics of military spending you draw attention away from the fact that it's horribly inefficiently spend money.

Spending money inefficiently and harmfully is not ethical either. Each side is saying the same thing.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If some militia would start killing politicians because of illegal wiretapping, they would be treated as terrorists and the right wing people would use it as justification that they need to destroy additional liberties to keep peace.

Right.

And how ironic is it that the same right wingers who support zero gun regulation also supported the government and president who took away the most civil liberties we've ever seen?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Right.

And how ironic is it that the same right wingers who support zero gun regulation also supported the government and president who took away the most civil liberties we've ever seen?

Even as I sit here contemplating how much money to send the RNC and admiring my new card, I am ashamed to say you are right about GWB. I am a member of the largest gun forum in the world and some of the die-hards won't concede that he was a failure as a president and IMO a disgrace to the party. Typically/historically republicans have been at the front with preservation of individual rights, GW was all about GW and not much else.

[jeff3]

Copied from morebans.org

Defend Yourself?



You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.


One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.



In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.


When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.



"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.


"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."


The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.



Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.


A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.


The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really happened.



On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April,

2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.



How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?


It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.



Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.


Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.



The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)



Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.


For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.


During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.


Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."



All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.



When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens



How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.


Sound familiar?


WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION!!

[Trezker]

I think it's ethically wrong to have a gun, especially using it, for self defense.
This is because I understand pacifism.

Throughout my whole upbringing up to barely a year ago I didn't understand pacifism. But after reading Steve and Erin's blogs I figured it out. One day when I was thinking about the oneness and unconditional love stuff, it just clicked. Suddenly I knew what pacifism was good for.

Now, I'm not saying I'm a pacifist. A little corner of my heart still desires violence. Maybe some day I'll commit to it. But I think it'll only be in real life, I really do love violence and war in games. (where's the evil grin emoticon?)

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April,

2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

A few issues with that story.

1. Was in the UK, not the US.
2. Tony Martin's sentence was commuted to five years.
3. He shot the bugler in the back as he was running away. Not exactly self defense.

That being said, the UK ban of guns does not seem to be working at all, and I don't agree with it. They are turning into a CCTV nation.


Here's another case study. You find a 13-year old in your house. He is stealing snacks. At gunpoint, you order him to lie down on the ground. You shoot him in the head execution style.

ABC News: Man Allegedly Shot Snacking Burglar


Self defense or murder?

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Trezker

I think it's ethically wrong to have a gun, especially using it, for self defense.
This is because I understand pacifism.

Throughout my whole upbringing up to barely a year ago I didn't understand pacifism. But after reading Steve and Erin's blogs I figured it out. One day when I was thinking about the oneness and unconditional love stuff, it just clicked. Suddenly I knew what pacifism was good for.

Now, I'm not saying I'm a pacifist. A little corner of my heart still desires violence. Maybe some day I'll commit to it. But I think it'll only be in real life, I really do love violence and war in games. (where's the evil grin emoticon?)

While I think pacifism is a wonderful ideal, I don't think it's reasonable to ask people to commit to it. I mean, if everyone honestly committed to it, it would work. But if even one person wouldn't commit to it, then it would all fall apart. In fact, unless other people broke off that commitment, then the one person who did break that commitment would have a great deal of power over everyone else.

While it's unfortunate, there are some people who will do what they can get away with, and people have a right to defend themselves from those who would perpetrate violence against them. If there were a way to reliably and non-violently neutralize threats, then I would say it's okay to be rid of guns. Until that time comes, I'd rather the aggressor be the one to be injured rather than the person defending himself/herself.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

How does everyone feel about the ethics of owning a gun (or guns) for self-defense?

If I choose to own a gun, I choose that experience. Sure. If I choose to use it in self-defense, I do that too. There is no problem as long as I am clear inside and not running a story that doesn't jive with the moment.

If I somehow get shot there's not a problem with others or with guns, there's a problem with me. I create my reality.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by jeff3

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

In light of this, it makes more sense why people argue against registration.

[vMike]

Don't live in a neighbourhood where you feel like you might need a gun. Seriously, don't, there are better places.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by vMike

Don't live in a neighbourhood where you feel like you might need a gun. Seriously, don't, there are better places.

There are also many reasons you might need a gun. One important reason is that some people are physically weaker than others, and a gun gives them a way to deter violence that would otherwise be inflicted on them.

Also, even if you live in a good neighborhood, that's no guarantee you won't ever need a gun. The unexpected happens sometimes. Moreover, if I were a criminal, and got wind of a whole neighborhood where no one owned guns, guess where my first target would be? It would be that neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

In light of this, it makes more sense why people argue against registration.

Here's another group of arguments, made by the police officers who get out and actually deal with violent crime: What Police Officers Really Say About the Gun Registry. Naturally, this is their experience and their views, but given what they do, I think it counts for something.

[JSB]

The police cannot protect you from violent crime; all they can do is show up afterwards and try to catch the criminals. It is up to you to keep yourself safe. Responsible, sane, law-abiding citizens should be able to choose whether or not to own firearms. (FYI, I do not currently own a gun.)

The phrase "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is often mocked by gun control advocates, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The person who breaks into the house doesn't know whether there will be a weapon inside it, so it's unlikely that the weapon would have a direct effect.

This probably depends a great deal on the are in which you live. Gun ownership was very high in the area where I grew up. Most every household had a gun. It would take very little effort for a person to figure out who was likely to own a gun (and be willing to use it) and who most likely did not own a gun. I think in these situations those households with guns are less likely to be broken into. It would be pretty stupid to break into a house with a pickup truck parked out front that had a gun rack in it.

[pyrogen]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

It is a fact that more people die in America in proportion to the amount of guns in the population.

The problem with these kind of proportions is that many people do NOT have guns, while some violent people have several. It does not reflect a more even distribution of guns.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by floslib

Also, even if you live in a good neighborhood, that's no guarantee you won't ever need a gun. The unexpected happens sometimes. Moreover, if I were a criminal, and got wind of a whole neighborhood where no one owned guns, guess where my first target would be? It would be that neighborhood.

Where I live I know I can walk around at 3 am and I'll be perfectly safe. Yeah there are some burglars, but not real criminals who would attack you on the street. I've traveled a lot throughout Western Europe and it's mostly safe, while in Eastern Europe it's not like that at all. In Moscow you have pretty good chances of getting robbed or encountering some drunk violent people at night ( I have). So a lot depends on where you live.

I'm not saying guns are bad, they do have pros and cons. Sometimes it might just get you into more trouble. Say what do you do if a criminal has a gun too, or if he has partners you haven't noticed before who can surprise you when you point the gun.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

A few issues with that story.

1. Was in the UK, not the US.
2. Tony Martin's sentence was commuted to five years.
3. He shot the bugler in the back as he was running away. Not exactly self defense.

That being said, the UK ban of guns does not seem to be working at all, and I don't agree with it. They are turning into a CCTV nation.


Here's another case study. You find a 13-year old in your house. He is stealing snacks. At gunpoint, you order him to lie down on the ground. You shoot him in the head execution style.

ABC News: Man Allegedly Shot Snacking Burglar


Self defense or murder?

If the boy actually lunged at him, like he said, I'd say self defense. The case hinges on motive.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by floslib

Here's another group of arguments, made by the police officers who get out and actually deal with violent crime: What Police Officers Really Say About the Gun Registry. Naturally, this is their experience and their views, but given what they do, I think it counts for something.

That's a great article, properly describing the misplaced effort spent on legally owned firearms, It also displays the politics often involved with law enforcement personnel being used as poster children for the gun control advocates and the fact that their true feelings are often overshadowed by the need for employment. Bill Clinton pressured the Fraternal Order of Police to produce a bunch of cops for photo ops and speeches in support of the Assault weapons ban back in the 80's, eventually it started leaking out that most of them were threatened with unemployability if they didn't comply. Long story short several were quoted describing the total uselessness of the bill and how it would have zero effect on crime.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

In light of this, it makes more sense why people argue against registration.

Registration is so adamantly resisted by gun owners because a "registration list" is synonymous with "confiscation list". I'm sure all history buffs know Hitler compiled a "registry" of all firearms, picked them up a couple years later and then..........

[suzuki_sx29]

Great topic! A couple of thoughts i have:
1: It really depends on the personality of the owner. Are you calm in stressful situations? Can you trust yourself to handle it responsibly and not just go blazing away when an opportunity/reason to defend yourself occurs?
2: As to the legalities of carrying a firearm on the street, I am unsure as to the laws in other states; i do know in AZ where i am, you can carry a gun in plain site anywhere it is not openly prohibited (ie schools, banks, sports complexes, etc.); yes, this means you can walk into a McDonalds and order a McChicken sandwich with a 12 gauge in your hand or a .45 on your hip, just don't be surprised if you are harassed for it. However, a CCW (Concealed weapon permit) is required if you wish to have it hidden. There is an open test/program to enroll in if you are interested in obtaining such a permit, although im sure if you are a convicted felon you would be disqualified. Dont know about other states though; sorry for my ignorance on the diversity of these laws...
if I reiterated anyone's posts, sorry, i havent read the whole thread yet!