[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Listen to yourself...No machine guns are sold for private use, outlawed, so only outlaws can and will get them or convert them.

I do not know all the correct terms, so when saying MG/MP typed guns I mean things like quick firing automatic attack rifles that hardly are used for hunting deer or getting the fox that steals your hens. I am talking about laser markers, night vision goggles, and people stockpiling ammunition as if they were saving for the next war. For self-defence, you do not need all this military or paramilitary equipment. Even a 40 year old small callibre PKK is sufficient for this kind of job most of the times.

You expect me to defend my family by moving, even that's beyond you.

I said where one has the option to move from a warzone, one should do it, because that is the best way to protect your children from criminal harm. If you voluntarily raise your family in a place where you expect shooting incidents, and by doing so making your kids soldfiers in your crusade for principal issues, you may think about for a monent what this tells about you and your claim to just "defend" your family. In fact you are just subborn and will to put them at the frontline of your own pride. That pride is pokay when you are speaking for yourslef only. When you have family and children, the kids interest go first. So, when you can, move out of a place where you expect of needing to defend them by the use of firearms againms threats that include firearms. Or do you think of your kids as your future private army?

Over 200,000 americans a year defend themselves with guns during acts of violence against them, store owners, home owners, etc.. I guess these just have to die, because the crooks will still have guns.

90% of people defend their homes with pistols or shotguns. I have several guns, but like most would grab the 12 gauge, I don't want to miss.

For the third time in this thread I hereby declare that I have turned from someone once having been against private gun ownership in principal, to someone now accepting private gun ownerhsip on a level that strictly is tailored for direct and immediate self-defence against violent crime. That means the robber in your house, shop robbery, and the rapist, in most case I assume.

I am for guns laws. I have no problem with a 3 day wait, no problem with required training for guns like pistols, most rifles and shotguns, you have to have training to get your hunting license. I think all guns should be sold by dealers that have a certified store, training, etc...

Yes, etc. See my ideas above, maybe they are tighter than yours, maybe not, however, we do not disagree completely.

Only farmers should hunt, are you serious, most farmers don't hunt, they don't have time, they let others hunt. The game population would die from disease if we didn't have a mass hunting population...

I assume some farmers may have a rifle of any kind to fight their lifestock against any predatory animals that may pop up in certain areas from time to time, or needing to kill a sick animal for mercy, the horse that broke its leg or whatever. Even self-defence when livbing in a very isolated area is a valid argument, when the police needs two hours to arrive in case of an emergency.

You're being silly my liberal friend and you know we agree on many things.

Ah, today it is liberal day then, thanks for the reminder, I often get confused by the many different days we have, when I get called a phobic or a Nazi or a rightwinger or a socialist or a hawk or a dove as well. Has all happened, will all happen again.

Try to take guns in America and it's prohibition all over, crooks would have them, others would hide them..it would solve nothing. We've seen how good gun laws work in these big cities where only crooks have guns, no thank you.
Not to mention government would have to put mass assets to collect, search and lawyers would be getting rich

I am not against (fourth time saying this now) against private gun possession in principal. I am however questioning the answers some people - not few people by the sales number of the gun-producing industry - give to what kind of arsenal it takes to succesfully repel a hostile attack, eh - I mean self defence against a rapist or robber.

Heck, I have several swords and knifes myself, though not storing the swords in my household. Could you imagine what bloody mess I could create with a Katana, even more since I got trained with it? I am not that phobically against weapons like you and maybe also August (not sure about him) seem to believe.

I just question the excesses that gun fetishism is being driven to by some people who seem to argue self defence means to be armed up to the teeth like a one man army. Want to protect your household and family? Doesn'T take half a dozen of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. A pistol or revolver is enough. If it isn't or you cannot make something out of that, then more weapons or bigger callibres or a higher rate of fire or 500 shots in the ammo box will not serve you any good anyway.

One should not argue in absolutes here. Numbers show that gun ownership also does a lot of damage, kills and hurts by accidents, or making criminals more aggressive and acting preemptively with higher brutality just becaysue the suspect their iuntended victim has firearms. Some weeks ago I linked to a meta-analysis claiming right this.

You have to weigh things. The damage being done by legalising widespread gun ownership, and the damage done by excessive crime that represents the exception from the rule of how to define the lion's share of self defence situations.