The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Voar Tok

There is no solid evidence to suggest this, while the Swiss are living proof that a mass gun permeation into the society does not arbitrarily encourage gun crime.  There's better evidence that a mass gun permeation discourages gun crime, since everyone is armed and (theoretically, like in the case of the Swiss) knows how to use the thing.quote>

The reason why the Swiss are doing reasonably well with their guns, is their well regulated militia. However, I suspect that it would be impossible to import such a militia to the US. There's a five month boot camp, 260 days of additional service until the age of 30, army issued weapons and ammunition, and an additional tax on those exempted from service.

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I'm not sure if anyone else shares my ideas about this, but I just don't see why someone would need to own 10 or 11 guns. At most, they need to own 1, It's these people that should get mental help, as they need to wake up to the fact that not everyone in the world is out to get them. If people feel they need that many guns, they should be considered a potential threat, because if they get mad, everything in the immediate vicinity will go to hell very, very quickly.quote>

Why would you need mental help for posessing several weapons? I know several who do, and not a single one of them do it for protection. If you're interested in guns, you might own a couple of different ones purely for sports, plus others for different types of hunting. Finally, maybe you're a collector, and have an old army rifle, a Luger from the Second World War and so on.

[Shingure 56]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: screamingman12

I'm not sure if anyone else shares my ideas about this, but I just don't see why someone would need to own 10 or 11 guns. At most, they need to own 1, It's these people that should get mental help, as they need to wake up to the fact that not everyone in the world is out to get them. If people feel they need that many guns, they should be considered a potential threat, because if they get mad, everything in the immediate vicinity will go to hell very, very quickly.quote>

Why would you need mental help for posessing several weapons? I know several who do, and not a single one of them do it for protection. If you're interested in guns, you might own a couple of different ones purely for sports, plus others for different types of hunting. Finally, maybe you're a collector, and have an old army rifle, a Luger from the Second World War and so on.quote>

 

A person would be in need of mental help...As a matter of fact I would recommend that every person who is buying a license and / or the gun it'self get a psychiactric evaluation to make sure they aren't prone to meltdowns and mental instabilty of such a thing . Seriously. Most times people who murder other people with guns are mentally unstable or in the middle of having  a melt down,  It's even worse when you have someone who owns a 45 ACP. a 44.mm , a Semi , A glock , and some other kinds of weapons and the person is known to have a history to have meltdowns , fallouts , and mentally unstable moments. I would say that a gun should be used to protect only if you are threatened with something that is mortifying.

Also PA shouldn't have 'stand your ground laws' . The people in the Western part of the state would go buckwild more than likely and Pennsylvannia will be known as Killsylvannia within a few short years. And honestly the murder rate would go up in Philadelphia most definately. Honestly Harrisburg is in need of a reality check , either allow the ordinances and bans on guns happen in the Southeast or you will be hearing from a good 1.4 million in city and another 2 million outside of the city. I mean the mayor already has his hands full with 6 shootings in 24 hours , One of which killed somebody. I want America to wake up and see that guns are beginning to destroy and cause decay to a already fragile society.

[Nerd_Guy 4]

I don't see what is wrong with owning several guns if you are a collector. My grandpa fought in Korea and started a collection when he got home.  After he died, the collection was auctioned off and I was left with a .22 that he made for me, and an M1 Carbine from his collection.  I want to start my own collection to keep the tradition going.  What's wrong with that? 

[Shingure 56]

Okay , You can own the guns...The thing is , do you buy the ammunition for them. It isn't really the gun that is deadly...It's the ammunition... But to Nerd_Guy , do you have ammunition for the guns that you do own. And If you won't mind if you do how many kinds of guns do you have and do you have the ammunition for those specific guns?

[Nerd_Guy 4]

To shingure: Yes, I do own the ammunition, but I don't keep the guns loaded.  I also know a lot about gun safety.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: Shingure

A person would be in need of mental help... [...] I would say that a gun should be used to protect only if you are threatened with something that is mortifying.quote>

No, they are not necessarily in need of mental help. Though some people might be paranoid about "protection", I believe that most people who own several guns do it out of an interest in sport and hunting too, even in the US. I'm not familiar with American gun culture, but the way you phrase it it sounds like countries like Switzerland and Finland are inhabitated by madmen because of their guns.

It's also worth noting that in countries with a "pro-gun" culture in Europe, like Switzerland and Finland, still bans them from public places (unless you've obtained a permit) and requires ammunition and guns to be separated under transport. You need a gun because you're in the military, because you're competing, or because you're hunting, not because you have a need to shoot bad guys at the town square.

[vgcpapa 5]

Here are a few of my thoughts:
- Why is this an issue of gun control or gun bans? Arms are not restricted to pistols or shotguns. Arms (armaments) can be any type of weapon: ie. knifes, small firearms, tanks, grenades, nuclear missiles and the list goes on.
note: I don't use the term WMD, because I believe that any W is capable of MD. 

- I am not an expert on Arms rights... so my question here is: What are the differences between my right to keep a M1 Abrams tank? My right to own a handgun? My right to a machete? My right to a hunting rifle? My right to an assualt rifle? My right to a nuclear warhead? My right to a piece of paper (in a case were I could protect myself by inflicting papercuts)? My right to a grenade (If I wanted to go hunting or fishing with grenades)? My right to a car? My right to a crossbow? My right to a horse or war elephant? My right to a yo-yo? 

- I think that most of these can reasonably be considered weapons/arms; and I think it is reasonable to say that the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

- So with all that said: My right to own a fighter jet shall not be infringed. My right to a tank shall not be infringed.

Note: In such a case were I am demographically suspect and consequentially my internet use is being monitored: The above post is for speculative purposes only. In no way do I endorse the unlawful possession or use of weapons, including but not limited to firearms, combat vehicles, explosives, battle llamas, or any instrument capable of inflicting harm or damage to persons and/or property.

[krbe 193]

Again, I'm not terrible familiar with US customs, but there's probably not much hindering you in owning a battle tank or a fighter jet (want to fly some? I know that a guy in SA rents his out, and he's probably not the only person owning fighter jets). Owning the weapon systems of these, is another matter, which has to do with controlling weapon technology. I doubt the US would be terribly happy about private persons owning fighter jet weapon systems or battle tank technology; what if it gets sold to states or organisations with which the state has hostile relations? (And yes, getting the technology out is a hell lot easier than getting the plane out of the country.)

Besides, if you want to go hunting with grenades, please do so, but check your local rules and regulations.

[Nerd_Guy 4]

Owning a tank in the US is perfectly legal, you just can;t drive them on public roads lol.  It is pretty much impossible to get an Abrams though, those are very classified.  A few people around here own old WWII fighters that could be armed if you try hard enough, but they are just for show.

And as for hunting with grendades, why waste a perfectly good frag? I have one sitting on my desk right now! (not live of course )

[BurroDiablo 222]

You can't drive Tracked vehicles on the Road in the UK, but its perfectly legal to buy an ex-military APC [wheeled one like a BTR] and use it for driving to the shops

[Red1530 1]

I think the main reason people in the United States own mutiple guns because they are designed for different purposes. For example you would not hunt big game with a small game gun and vic a versa.

[Yoman3 5]

Originally posted by: krbe

Originally posted by: Shingure

A person would be in need of mental help... [...] I would say that a gun should be used to protect only if you are threatened with something that is mortifying.quote>

No, they are not necessarily in need of mental help. Though some people might be paranoid about "protection", I believe that most people who own several guns do it out of an interest in sport and hunting too, even in the US. I'm not familiar with American gun culture, but the way you phrase it it sounds like countries like Switzerland and Finland are inhabitated by madmen because of their guns.

It's also worth noting that in countries with a "pro-gun" culture in Europe, like Switzerland and Finland, still bans them from public places (unless you've obtained a permit) and requires ammunition and guns to be separated under transport. You need a gun because you're in the military, because you're competing, or because you're hunting, not because you have a need to shoot bad guys at the town square.quote>

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but in NYC you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you are ex police, police, military, or ex military, I think special permits which are hard to get allows it also. Don't think guns are allowed to be loaded while in transport either. And of course, the saftey should always be on.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Yoman3

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but in NYC you cannot carry a concealed weapon unless you are ex police, police, military, or ex military, I think special permits which are hard to get allows it also. Don't think guns are allowed to be loaded while in transport either. And of course, the saftey should always be on.quote>

But carrying a weapon openly is another issue.

Gun-toting diners draw little notice

The patrons at Champps in Reston, an upscale restaurant and bar chain, were eating ribs and drinking beer on a recent Saturday when customer Bruce Jackson stood up and made an announcement: He was armed, and so were dozens of other patrons.

The armed customers stood up in unison, showing off holstered pistols. Mr. Jackson said a word or two about the rights of gun owners to carry firearms in Virginia, then thanked everyone for his or her attention and sat down.

And the diners returned to their burgers and Budweisers.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) organized the dinner at Champps to prove a point: that the presence of armed customers in Northern Virginia restaurants would elicit little more than shrugs.

The dinner — and several other restaurant visits throughout Northern Virginia last month — were a response to comments from the majority leader in the state Senate, Democrat Richard L. Saslaw, who said during a legislative debate that armed patrons would be unwelcome in Northern Virginia restaurants.

"In most urban areas, you walk into a restaurant with a gun on your hip, they're going to tell you to get out," Mr. Saslaw said.

In fact, with a few exceptions, the gun owners got their meals. The group went to eight different restaurants last month — at two of them, they were asked to leave. More often than not, though, their presence failed to generate a stir.

All the restaurants were in Fairfax County, a bastion of suburbia outside Washington that is the wealthiest county in America, according to the most recent census data. It is also a place where nerves over the gun debate are still somewhat raw a year after the shootings at Virginia Tech, where 32 people were slain, including many from Northern Virginia.

The restaurants included numerous family establishments including the Fuddruckers burger chain and the McLean Family Restaurant.

"We wanted to prove not only that [Mr. Saslaw] was wrong, but we wanted to make the point that we have the right to self-defense. That's a God-given right," said Dave Vann, a retired D.C. police officer and VCDL member who organized the restaurant visits.

In Virginia, gun owners are allowed to carry firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant permits it and they carry their weapon openly. Legislation to allow concealed weapons in restaurants serving alcohol passed the General Assembly this year, but was vetoed by Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat.

While Virginia is generally considered friendly to gun owners, it is only one of two states — along with Montana — that requires people to openly carry arms in restaurants that serve alcohol, according to the Web site opencarry.org, which promotes and monitors gun owners' rights. Eleven states ban guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, while the rest make no distinction between open and concealed weapons.

At Champps, several patrons failed to notice that many customers were armed, even though dozens of gun-toting men and women had walked right past them.

Tomas Nolasco of Reston said he hadn't noticed the guns and didn't care as long as the owners weren't drinking. (They weren't.) His wife was a little more concerned.

"There are families in here, children in here," Cathy Nolasco said. "It bothers me."

Brendan Fitzgerald of Reston and his friends noticed the guns immediately. They were curious but unconcerned.

"I'm just laughing because it's totally unnecessary in my opinion," Mr. Fitzgerald said, pointing to one individual who not only was armed but also had several clips of ammunition attached to his belt.

"This is Reston, not Southeast," said his friend, Nathan Dicken, contrasting the Northern Virginia suburb to a section of the District known for gun violence.quote>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/11/gun-toting-diners-draw-little-notice/

[Easy Bakes 253]

Im glad they at had the sense to keep them out of places that exclusivly serve alcohol.

guns and Alcohol dont mix.

[Estanton22 0]

Certainly people who are hunters use their guns in a way generally considered to be constructive. Rarely are these guns used to harm other people, and unfortunately these instances are usually accidents; i.e. a teenager getting a hold of his dad's loaded gun, or a hunter making a mistake. Hunters, as was mentioned, do need to have multiple guns as well as bow n' arrows for hunting different type of game, and therefore should be allowed their guns after getting proper approval and licenses.

However, when we begin talking about the Second Amendment and the "right to bear arms," things become cloudy. Normally people use the Second Amendment as a way to support the right to own various types of hand guns, saying they are necessary for protection. But if we think about the wording, right to bear arms, what exactly does that mean?

At the time the document was written, the technology had only evolved to include early guns. Today, we have everything from rifles, to grenades, to hydrogen bombs; all of which are considered "arms." Thus, why is there no great national debate about the right of the average American to bear a hydrogen bomb; because people universally agree that they are dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. The same standard should be applied to guns. They are dangerous in the hands of the wrong person.

I don't believe that guns should be completely banned; the majority cause no problems and give people entertainment in collections or at the shooting range. However, we need to closely examine who is getting guns what kinds are available to them. Strong, organized and enforced laws are restrictions are need to control the use and availability of guns; but they should be available.

[Meg 368]

D.C. Gun Registration Begins Thursday

POSTED: 6:56 am EDT July 16, 2008

UPDATED: 6:19 pm EDT July 16, 2008

WASHINGTON -- D.C. police will start the gun registration process on Thursday as a 180-day amnesty period opens.The amnesty period allows residents to register handguns they have had illegally or guns from other states.Police said they are ready for the rush. The police department will open an office to handle registrations at 7 a.m. Thursday at police headquarters at 300 Indiana Avenue northwest.

 

Officers will take temporary possession of guns to tag them and conduct ballistics tests.Guns will be returned to owners, and they will get paperwork indicating that registration is in process. After an FBI background check, which takes about 14 days, the guns will be officially registered. The registration process actually will be faster for people who have had illegal handguns compared with people who want to purchase guns. quote>

[ShortStraw 1]

I'm seeing some confusion about the specifics of gun ownership and gun crime in America.  First, I'd like to address this comment from Estanton22:

"I don't believe that guns should be completely banned; the majority cause no problems and give people entertainment in collections or at the shooting range. However, we need to closely examine who is getting guns what kinds are available to them. Strong, organized and enforced laws are restrictions are need to control the use and availability of guns; but they should be available. "

This is pretty much a majority opinion in the U.S.   It's a popular opinion that has resulted in a fairly organized and effective system of controlling gun ownership in this country.  Under the Brady Bill, FBI background checks prevent legal gun ownership in the following cases. . . (The following quoted material is from this website  http://www.gunowners.org/bifbi2.htm where you can find many other details of the Brady Bill and our governments policies on gun ownership)

"SYSTEM NAME:

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

SYSTEM LOCATION:

Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

The categories of individuals covered by the system include any person who:

    A. Is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    B. Is a fugitive from justice;

    C. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

    D. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

    E. Is an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;

    F. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

    G. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced such citizenship;

    H. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner (issued after a hearing of which actual notice was received);

    I. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (involving the use or attempted use of physical force committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim or by a person with a similar relationship with the victim);

    J. Is otherwise disqualified from possessing a firearm under State law;

    K. Is a Federal firearms licensee (FFL), i.e., a person licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), United States Department of Treasury, as a manufacturer, dealer, or importer of firearms, and authorized by the FBI to request NICS background checks; or

    L. Has applied for the purchase of a firearm or a firearms-related permit or license and has had his or her name forwarded to the NICS as part of a request for a NICS background check. (Identifying information about this category of individual is maintained for system administration and security purposes only in the ``NICS Audit Log,'' a system transaction log described below under the headings ``CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM'' AND ``RETENTION AND DISPOSAL.'' In cases where the NICS background check does not locate a disqualifying record, information about the individual will only be retained temporarily for audit purposes and will be destroyed after eighteen months. The system will not contain any details about the type of firearm which is the subject of the proposed transfer (other than the fact that it is a handgun or a long gun) or whether a sale or transfer of a firearm has actually taken place.)"

While total enforcement of existing gun laws is somewhat unrealistic, that hasn't stopped our government from making the attempt.  According to the U.S. Department of Justices Bureau of Justice Statistics ( http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm ) 80% of firearms used in the commision of a crime were obtained from "family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source".  What this means to me is, that gun nut down the street who legally owns 12 different assault rifles, 9 different handguns, 4 crates of dynamite and maybe an Abrams or 2 is not a threat to me.  At least, not nearly as much of a threat as any individual who has any reason to illegally own any weapon.

The other thing I felt compelled to address is the misunderstanding that the Right to Bear Arms is limited to guns in the U.S.  A surprising variety of weapons are legally available to private U.S. citizens including combat vehicles, body armor, explosives and advanced (though not "cutting edge") military technology such as Guidance, tracking and surveillance systems.  In general, the more destructive the weapon the more expensive and difficult it will be to obtain but I couldn't find specific laws that expressly outlawed the ownership of specific weapons in the U.S.  (Although Alaska, Delaware, and South Dakota do have State Laws expressly forbidding the private ownership of nuclear weapons, those were the only ones I could actually locate.).

To sum up, I'm going to go with this idea. . .

Eliminating all private gun ownership in the U.S. would result in fewer deaths/injuries from crime and accidents.

Outlawing all private gun ownership in the U.S. would result in more deaths/injuries from crime and accidents.

Whew.  didn't mean to babble on.  Thanks for sticking through if you actually read all that.

edit: couldn't get links to work so I just copy pasted the urls for my 2 referenced sites.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I haven't been around in a while,  some thoughts I'd been hoarding...

I saw Chicago's Mayor Daley ('The Don') *****ing and moaning about the court's decision. The FBI has mob guys bragging on tape about how they got him elected. Just outrageous hypocrisy, to ride into office with the help of gun-toting murderers but try to take the guns away from the honest people. His hysterics show that it was a good decision.

For those of us on (and in) the Right on this issue, Bush did what he was expected to do; stack the court. Many gun owners realize that had Kerry or Gore been elected, we would have lost even more of our Constitutional rights on this case.

[Voar Tok 4]

When you make comments like that, it's better to keep stuff like "on (and in) the Right" to yourself. It keeps the writer from looking like an inconsiderate, stuck up, I'm right and you're wrong, idiot.

BTW, do you have any proof of this stuff about the FBI?

[Shingure 56]

Eliminating all private gun ownership in the U.S. would result in fewer deaths/injuries from crime and accidents.

Outlawing all private gun ownership in the U.S. would result in more deaths/injuries from crime and accidents.quote>

I can agree with this. If there is no guns , It's no 'bang ...you're dead..'

Outlawing them would make people want to carry them more often. Because it's that child complex that everyone has. Like when your mother tells you not to touch her favorite piece of china and you touch it and it falls and breaks. Exactly what happens when you outlaw it , it has a tendency about 80 percent of the time to continue and increase in number.

[Mayor Abe 3]

Here's the big problem; Firstly, one cannot stop actual criminals from getting a gun, unless production of guns was ended completely, and the death penalty was established for anyone carrying an illegal gun. But, lets look at the case itself. I live in NYC, a city with an anti gun mayor, but not a handgun ban, and crime is still on the decline here. However, in D.C., even when they had the gun ban, they had an excessive murder rate, over the ntnl. average. However, as for the high school shootings, if they happened all the time, the media would simply not over-dramatize it as they do now. What I mean to say is that a total handgun ban would not discourage troubled kids from simply bringing a knife to school. This, however, is not to say that the US dosent have an unusually high rate of gun ownership.

[Red1530 1]

This story shows what happens to criminals when they encounter armed civilians.

Bank customer shoots gunman after robbery

By RUSS PULLEY

The Kansas City Star

An investigator worked at the scene of a robbery Saturday in which a bank customer shot a man who had taken money from him at gunpoint. The robber was in stable condition.

A bank customer shot a robber after an armed confrontation in a Kansas City parking lot Saturday.

The robber was wounded in the head and was in stable condition at a hospital, police said.

The shooting happened about 9 a.m. when a man and a woman were in a car using the automated teller machine at the Bank of America at North Oak Trafficway and Barry Road.

They were robbed at gunpoint, but as the gunman walked away, the man in the car got out armed with his own gun, said Sgt. Chris Lantz of the department’s robbery unit.

The man yelled for the robber to stop. When the robber turned around and pointed his gun, the man fired at him, hitting him in the head, Lantz said.

At the scene Saturday, investigators were collecting evidence from a dark sedan parked next to the ATM. An object that looked like a handgun was lying on the pavement. Nearby were apparent bloodstains.

Police interviewed the couple and witnesses.

The robbery victim had a permit to carry a concealed gun, Lantz said. Under the circumstances, Lantz said, that would not matter because he could legally carry the weapon in his car.

No criminal case has been presented, and authorities are waiting to see whether the patient recovers, said Jim Roberts, spokesman for the Clay County prosecutor’s office.

Police ask that anyone who witnessed the incident call the TIPS Hotline at 816-474-TIPS (474-8477).quote>

Source:  http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/731604.html

[Duke87 1,070]

Now see, that is smart and responsible use of a gun. Without it, that guy would have been down whatever it was he was robbed - likely including his wallet, which would have meant he'd have to get a new ID, cancel all his credit cards, obtain new cards for anything else he had in there, etc. A lot of headache.

And, more importantly, the next person who decides it's a good idea to try and commit such a crime may think twice now.

[bobinator 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Now see, that is smart and responsible use of a gun. Without it, that guy would have been down whatever it was he was robbed - likely including his wallet, which would have meant he'd have to get a new ID, cancel all his credit cards, obtain new cards for anything else he had in there, etc. A lot of headache.

And, more importantly, the next person who decides it's a good idea to try and commit such a crime may think twice now.quote>

Meh, the robber's gun was already 1 to many. What if one of them had been killed? Is the value of a wallet (and whatever else was stolen) worth someone's life?...

[Red1530 1]

Originally posted by: bobinator

Originally posted by: Duke87 Now see, that is smart and responsible use of a gun. Without it, that guy would have been down whatever it was he was robbed - likely including his wallet, which would have meant he'd have to get a new ID, cancel all his credit cards, obtain new cards for anything else he had in there, etc. A lot of headache.

And, more importantly, the next person who decides it's a good idea to try and commit such a crime may think twice now.quote>

Meh, the robber's gun was already 1 to many. What if one of them had been killed? Is the value of a wallet (and whatever else was stolen) worth someone's life?...quote>

A number of Americans believe you have the right to do defend your property with force.

[Duke87 1,070]

Not only that, but people do sometimes survive being shot, you know. Depends a lot on where the bullet hits and the nature of their body. You probably won't die from getting shot in the shoulder (although it may cause other permanent damage).

And sometimes you don't even have to pull the trigger, just brandishing the gun or pointing it at someone is enough.

Besides, which is worth more depends on who's it is. Obviously, your wallet isn't worth more than your life. And probably not the life of one of your friends or family, either.

But a total stranger's life? That's a different story. I wouldn't exactly miss him if he was dead.

And then you have the problem where if you just let someone get away with taking your property, you enable them to keep doing so to other people, and for others to do so to you.

It's hard to feel sorry for a burglar who got killed by someone who's house they were burglarizing. They knew they were committing a crime. And they knew that someone might be home, and might retaliate against them, possibly with lethal force. They knew the risk. They did it anyway.

So far as I'm concerned, the death of the burglar is the burglar's fault and no one else's.

[hawkpride147 1]

man i love Texas...i don't have to worry here about being charged for shooting something if they're robbing me...

[bobinator 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

And sometimes you don't even have to pull the trigger, just brandishing the gun or pointing it at someone is enough.

quote>

Yep, but pulling a gun on an armed robber as a threat doesn't necessarily mean he will back down, he can still shoot.

Originally posted by: Duke87

Besides, which is worth more depends on who's it is. Obviously, your wallet isn't worth more than your life. And probably not the life of one of your friends or family, either.

But a total stranger's life? That's a different story. I wouldn't exactly miss him if he was dead.

quote>

Luckily the man being robbed shot before the robber could get him, it could have gone the other way. If you pull a gun on someone who is armed, it's not a guarantee you will walk away. Again, is your life worth your wallet? On the other hand, if I killed a stranger over my wallet, I think after the fact I would still have a hard time dealing with it (even if he was a robber).

Originally posted by: Duke87

And then you have the problem where if you just let someone get away with taking your property, you enable them to keep doing so to other people, and for others to do so to you.

quote>

Thats what police are for, although with my limited experience with them, they aren't exactly the quickest bunch to the scene of the crime lol...(another burglary).

[Ndragonawa 37]

To me, guns are an extra safety precaution, in the RIGHT HANDS, and there are alot more good people than there are bad.

For example, lets say that we bans all guns. You can't buy one anywhere, and nobody owns one. Then, all of a sudden there's a crazy nut that still has one, and he doesn't care about the law, because he's going to cause a massacre. Nobody can shoot him because there are no more guns. There's no bullet proof vests because, well duh....

The point is that a gun is a tool, and banning it probably won't do much. Instead of a nice clean shot to the head, a victim has to go though the pain of being stabbed. Also don't forget that their are other ways to kill someone, like a knife, sword, dagger, baseball bat, crobar, a car, etc. Are you going to ban baseball? Or why not abolish driving?

[Meg 368]

Here is a recent, real life example of what many people here have been talking about

Intruders shot after Texas couple wrests shotgun

BLUE MOUND, Texas (AP) — When two gunmen smashed through the glass front door of her suburban Fort Worth home, Kellie Hoehn didn't think twice.

 

The 34-year-old mother of two grabbed a shotgun that had been pointed at her face early Wednesday, starting a struggle that ended with one intruder killed with his own weapon and another in the hospital. 

 

"I wasn't going to let them get to my babies," she said, recalling the moment when she pushed up the muzzle of the shotgun, pointing it away from her children's rooms.

 

Although the intruders told her to keep quiet, she screamed for her husband. She told her 12-year-old son, who was awakened by the sound of the shattering glass front door, to get his 5-year-old sister and hide.

 

"It was like a horror movie," her husband, 32-year-old Keith Hoehn, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "I thought I was a dead man. We're fighting for our lives."

 

With Kellie Hoehn clinging to the weapon's muzzle, her husband tackled the man who held the shotgun. She knocked the intruder in the head with a jar candle, giving her husband a chance to wrest the shotgun.

 

By then the tussle had spilled out onto the front lawn. Keith Hoehn shot one of the men who had a pistol, police said. Wounded, that man ran away.

 

Then the intruder who initially had the shotgun charged Keith Hoehn.

 

Kellie Hoehn told The Dallas Morning News that she screamed at her husband, "Shoot him, shoot him, shoot him."

 

Her husband fired the shotgun and the man fell to the ground. Then the shot man lunged a second time.

 

"Well, I shot him again, and I guess that was it," Keith Hoehn said.

 

Dakota Scott Benoit, 20, of Richland Hills, was pronounced dead at a hospital. John Garland Pierson, 25, of Haltom City, was in critical condition and in police custody at the hospital.

 

"I am not happy that someone is dead," Kellie Hoehn said. "But I am glad that my family is alive."

 

Police said Pierson was shot in the left arm and the bullet pierced his diaphragm and other organs but his condition was improving. He will face charges of burglary of habitation with intent to commit another felony, police said.

 

Investigators say the couple were just defending their family and probably won't be charged.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gD62eO8MQGdN5ycm2tt1_xYfxjsAD9305NT82

quote>

The situation could have gone either way.  I do not know the statistics regarding events like this.