I used to be very anti-gun-ownership. Then I got to be good friends with a guy from the south who's introduced me to the gun culture personally. After hanging around, doing some shooting and meeting these so-called right-wing gun-nuts that come to shooting ranges etc., you know what, I honestly realized that contrary to the crazed unreasonable people that everyone paints them as, they're actually some of the more reasonable, civil, and above all safety-conscious (as in, gun handling/storage safety) people I've met. I'd be doing them a disservice if I said they shouldn't own guns.

I still support strict gun registration and licensing, which they obviously don't, but I'd honestly be lying if I said that gun owners in the American general public don't deserve to have things their way.

I've always seen home defense as thus:

If you're prepared for the worst case, the worst that can happen is you end up dead.

If you're not prepared for the worst case, the best than can happen is you end up dead.

How an individual chooses to define "prepared" is up to the individual. Some live in houses with bars on the windows and doors. Others own guns, or bright outside lighting. Some do less, others do more.

I've trained lots of kids to shoot - some as young as seven or eight. I've also taught them how to handle firearms safely and responsibly. And to this date, not one of those kids I taught - and there were hundreds - has ever blasted one of his mates, accidentally or intentionally.

So, like it our not, there ARE responsible gun owners. Just like there are irresponsible car owners... and irresponsible parents.

I'm going to buy a lightning-proof coat and wear it at all times. Actually, better make it meteor-proof as well. One should always be prepared for the worst.

Yup. Better look into the armor-plated vehicles, too, unless you plan on hiding inside the rest of your days in your impregnable fortress of attitude.

Hit a nerve, did I? Funny how often my arguments with pro-gun folk result in them promising (and sometimes outright threatening) physical violence, either from themselves or others. I'm almost given to thinking it's all they understand.

Excuse me? How in any way did I threaten you?

All I did was suggest that, if you're going to take my words to ridiculous extremes, perhaps you would like to extend your protection to your home and/or means of conveyance, as those things are also susceptible to lightning and/or atmospheric anomalies.

Funny how anti-gun people immediately assume it's all about them.

Let me restate, since you clearly tripped right on over the main point of my earlier statement in your rush prove your intellectual and moral superiority to the rest of us.

"How an individual chooses to define "prepared" is up to the individual. Some live in houses with bars on the windows and doors. Others own guns, or bright outside lighting. Some do less, others do more."

You were suggesting an armoured vehicle as a way to defend my home from lightning and meteor strikes? And how would that work exactly? Would I park my house inside my car at night instead of the other way around?

Definitely hit a nerve. Sorry about that. Go shoot something, you'll feel better.

I understood it as a means of being safe outside your house.;)

Yeah, that's exactly how I understood it as well. :up:

I guess this is why here in the United States our citizens, for the most part, have a choice concerning whether they choose to own a handgun.

Those that choose not to own one have the freedom not to have one
Those that choose to own one, with in some limitations, have the freedom to own one.

Win win situation

I have never heard of a gun owner trying to force non gun owners to own a gun. :nope:

Yes, but I didn't interpret it as a threat towards you. Just as a statement that there is no 100% safety, neither with guns nor without.
To add my 2c, I'm quite happy about our strict regulations regarding gun ownership here. We have very few people being killed by guns. On the other hand, I can understand that a country like the US can't be made gun free anymore. It's too deep in their culture and the country is already flooded with weapons so there is hardly a way to really reverse things.

Well I've never heard of an innocent gun-owner getting shot by a non-gun-owner's non-existent gun.

I'm painfully aware that, being British, my opinions must seem rather unwelcome even to some anti-gun Americans. But my father lives in the US and my job involves regularly working in the states (I'm actually in the US right now). I do not claim to have any deep understanding of American culture, nor any "right" to involve myself in the legal side of this debate. But I am somewhat affected by it, and issues of morality (as opposed to legality) are IMO not bound by borders.

Flawed argument IMHO. nothing personal but i think its a bit off kilter as it seems to make the assumption that the only way to kill someone is to shoot them.

i have heard of plenty of people beaten to death, burned to death, stabbed to death, strangled to death, hacked into pieces, the list goes on.

is any of those methods of killing someone more reasonable, more humane than shooting them?

fact is taking another persons life is a terrible thing to do, its a horrible thing to want to do, and its a horrible thing to be put into a situation wherein you may have no choice.

There are folks out there who would just as soon look at you as murder you.

and OLC

meteors?

seriously?

if a meteor were to fall on me right now, there is no way i could protect against it, let alone predict it's occurrence.

lets try to stay more grounded in reality - a fire for example is a real possibility. Is it not wise to have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen? A car accident is a real possibility, is it not wise to wear a seat belt?

Being a person who likes to be prepared for things large and small is one thing.

being a person who belittles a person's choice to be prepared with stingy little sarcastic comments is a whole other matter.

nobody here is putting a gun in your hand.

you have expressed that you choose not to own one because its "easier a decision" for you to make. Others have said they choose to own one for the sake of preparedness or sport.

not one person that i have seen has bashed your choice with sarcasm... in the least, return that favor. :up:

where do you stand on abortion? just curious

Sure, if that makes you feel safer. Seems rather silly to me, but what do I know? I'm just some upstart colonial with a gun and an apparently uncontrollable urge to use it.

No nerves hit here. I'm just curious as to how, yet again, you've managed to cleverly avoid speaking about that point of my statement with yet another ad hominem attack.

None of them are more reasonable and most of them are less humane than shooting, but *all* of them are considerably more difficult than pulling a trigger. Stabbing someone with a knife is, I gather, a visceral act. You feel the blade go in, the flesh tear, the bones resist. Strangling someone you feel the life ebb from their body. You don't just point and press a button.

Also there are never any innocent bystanders, nor any accidental discharges.

You could protect yourself from a small (say, bullet sized) meteor. A big one, no - but neither will a gun protect you from a guy with a nuke. As for predicting meteor strikes... are you saying you have a crystal ball that tells you when someone is going to break into your house?

Didn't I already answer this? Fire extinguishers and seatbelts save lifes. Guns only end them.

I use sarcasm, you buy guns. Which of us is being more aggressive?

Interesting tangent. Abortion is a difficult one. I generally favour abortion being legal and the choice of the mother. The long and short of my justification is this: if my mother had not wanted me, then I would rather she had been allowed to abort me. I wouldn't know any different and she, in this hypothetical scenario, would be happier (I hope). That said, things do get complicated in some circumstances. For example, what if the father wants to keep the baby and is willing to raise it alone? That one makes my head hurt.

You mean the part where you say "some choose to do more, some choose to do less"? I didn't realise that needed a reply, but if you like: those choosing to do "less" as you put it are not endangering others by their choices.