Opinion about weapons?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see nothing wrong with owning a weapon. It could be used for many reasons, like target practice or hunting. I do find it extremely problematic to use any weapons agains another human for any reason. I am aware of the “just war” and “legitimate defense” Position of the church, but I am not convinced by them.
 
If you shoot someone in the leg in a self defense case, chances are you are going to jail. You shoot to kill. Center mass shots. A leg shot will still let a criminal continue the fight. I was never taught in the Army to shoot someone in the leg.
 
Rau said:
I had no idea that violent crime in the US is so commonplace that people feel driven to own gun(s).
Click to expand...
Is like wearing a seat belt or having insurance. For a small investment you can protect your family from great bodily harm. Also, it is a duty to defend one’s family.
 
Apache78 said:
We as legal gun owners are not the problem.
Click to expand...
This is similar to the paradox I referred to above. What seems reasonable for the one (to own a gun for self-defence) leads to easy and widespread availability of guns. They fall into the wrong hands. They become too easy to reach for to resolve incidents. And then the many seem to be at heightened risk.
 
Apache78 said:
If you shoot someone in the leg in a self defense case, chances are you are going to jail.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you try that you better be a darn good shot, or chances are you’ll miss and the bad guy will be on top of you. Or if you make the shot, he’ll still be on top of you because he was close enough for you to hit such a small target, it didn’t really stop him and now he’s really mad.

I’m a better shot with my revolver than most guys at the range are with their rifles, and that’s still not a shot I’d try to make.
Apache78 said:
You shoot to kill.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you shoot with the intent to kill you will go to jail. You shoot with the intent to stop the attack, and the most reliable way to do that is to aim for the center of mass and shoot until the assailant is no longer a threat. Yep, he may die, but that wasn’t the intent.
 
Last edited:
Some people are obsessed with guns. That’s not good. If guns are tools it’s like getting obsessed with your crescent wrench. We shouldn’t have a passionate love affair with inanimate objects.
 
Apache78 said:
But one should have proper training when owning firearms and keeping them in a safe place is a must.
Click to expand...
Sure, it’s just that this utopia (where everyone is fully cognizant of the use and dangers of firearms) does not and will never exist.

The lobby and manufacturers want these things as easily obtainable as possible, primarily using uncertainty and fear as a sales approach.

I “get” having a 12ga for home defense, bolt/lever rifles in different gauges for SHTF. Maybe even a wheel-gun. The rest of it just contributes to crime while doing little to keep you safe in a way these more “pedestrian” firearms apparently don’t (as is the silly argument).
Apache78 said:
We as legal gun owners are not the problem. We have over 400 million guns in the US that are legal firearms. If there were a gun problem, people would know it.
Click to expand...
We do know it. Compared to the other countries in the first world, the US is the Wild West.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
Apache78:
If you shoot someone in the leg in a self defense case, chances are you are going to jail.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you try that you better be a darn good shot, or chances are you’ll miss and the bad guy will be on top of you. Or if you make the shot, he’ll still be on top of you because he was close enough for you to hit such a small target, it didn’t really stop him and now he’s really mad.

I’m a better shot with my revolver than most guys at the range are with their rifles, and that’s still not a shot I’d try to make.
Apache78 said:
You shoot to kill.
Click to expand...
Nope. If you shoot with the intent to kill you will go to jail. You shoot with the intent to stop the attack, and the most reliable way to do that is to aim for the center of mass and shoot until the assailant is no longer a threat. Yep, he may die, but that wasn’t the intent.
Click to expand...
Nice point - especially in this day and age where cellphones are recording everything.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Apache78:
We as legal gun owners are not the problem.
Click to expand...
This is similar to the paradox I referred to above. What seems reasonable for the one (to own a gun for self-defence) leads to easy and widespread availability of guns. They fall into the wrong hands. They become too easy to reach for to resolve incidents. And then the many seem to be at heightened risk.
Click to expand...
Good point.

As the professional criminal will always have access to things the law-abiding do not, I ask myself “How armed to I want the petty criminal or the newly-radicalized to be on short notice?”

In other words-

“What should be readily available in stores?”
 
Last edited:
Criminals don’t always buy guns at stores they buy them off the black market.
[/quote]

Quite right, but most of the last few horrifics involving those little black rifles and other things were obtained at brightly-lit points-of-sale with the proper paperwork.

But yes, the career criminal won’t use such means. And regardless where you draw the line, he’ll have access to more by virtue of his readiness to step beyond that line.
 
Last edited:
Other countries are Orwellian nightmares where you can’t express freedom of speech or religious liberty…

You couldn’t pay me to live in the UK where you can be prosecuted for thought crimes.
[/quote]

As an American, I agree. I think the concept of “hate crime” should be erased from our legal language.

A murder is not more or less heinous because it was done out of race than it would be if done for any other reason.
 
umamibella said:
There are some big predators in the States!
Click to expand...
They aren’t really that big. But to my chickens they are. That’s why I have no problem taking them out. And chickens actually love to feast on dead coyote!
 
Last edited:
Apache78 said:
If you shoot someone in the leg in a self defense case, chances are you are going to jail. You shoot to kill. Center mass shots. A leg shot will still let a criminal continue the fight. I was never taught in the Army to shoot someone in the leg.
Click to expand...
That’s why I wouldn’t aim at the legs.
 
They sure came in handy when we were fighting the Imperialist Japanese and the Nazi’s during the 1940’s. Plus, plenty of citizens have protected themselves and their loved ones with them from criminals. Weapons by themselves are not evil, it’s the people who use them in a criminal manner that are.
 
I’m no gunsmith, but caulk can’t be good for most revolvers.
 
Apache78 said:
If you shoot someone in the leg in a self defense case, chances are you are going to jail. You shoot to kill. Center mass shots. A leg shot will still let a criminal continue the fight. I was never taught in the Army to shoot someone in the leg.
Click to expand...
I understand and agree with the statement that self-defense requires that you shoot to kill, but man that is a screwed-up legal system! If anything, shooting someone in the leg is poor judgement, but you’re telling me that if someone does that, they’ll likely be convicted but if they kill the guy by shooting centre of mass they won’t?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top