Opinion about weapons?

[Inquisitor85]

Funny you mention tacticool, theres a new pro gun YouTube channel that is gaining traction on the left, whose first video was firearms safety, and second was how to build a first aid kit. She’s called herself Tacticool Girlfriend.

 

[RuthAnne]

Fine

Thank you!

 

[Montrose]

You don’t know where to find it? Then why did you presume to make a claim about what it shows? Were you just repeating something you’d heard in the news or on internet forums, or from anti-gun activists who have repeatedly proven to not know what they’re talking about?

You are the one who said data supports your claim. Please show it. You are now digressing because you have nothing to support your claim.

I said the US per capita is not only the most violent of all developed countries but violent gun deaths in the US per capita are more than all the developed countries combined.
In fact taking every country in the world there are only 27 worse than the US.
Here is my data.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Now show me your data that you claim backs your position.

 

[JanR]

Weapons used responsibly and legally serve a valuable purpose. They protect our lives, our families, and our property. Most of us hope we’re never in a position or situation where we have to use weapons. In many cases, there are other ways of defusing a potentially dangerous situation. If we can safely escape, that’s usually the best option. Sometimes, we can’t. Legitimate self defense, or defense of another person being imminently threatened is not only our fundamental right, it’s our duty.

No, weapons are not an invention of Satan. It’s how and why we use weapons that determines whether or not they become the means of sinful behavior.

 

[Rau]

Weapons used responsibly and legally serve a valuable purpose.

It’s how and why we use weapons that determines whether or not they become the means of sinful behavior.

Few would argue with those statements but I think they don’t capture the full picture.

When guns are readily available and many carry them as openly as they carry a phone, guns are normalised. This drives up the likelihood that they won’t be used responsibly. It drives up the likelihood they become available to those who would them legally.

 

[JanR]

Criminals are going to use guns illegally regardless of how openly available they are. Criminals don’t care how they obtain guns, whether they purchase them, steal them, find them, or whatever. They will get guns whether they’re supposed to have them or not.

Meanwhile, law abiding citizens will have a means of defending themselves if they need to. Carrying a gun openly, properly registered, or concealed, with a permit, can be a deterrent against criminal activity. Often, just seeing that a potential victim is armed is enough to cause a criminal to look elsewhere.

My dad told about this incident during his childhood that occurred during the Great Depression, when so many folks were financially ruined and desperate:

He and his family were embarking on a camping trip. In those days, one could pull off the road almost anywhere and camp. There weren’t the restrictions we have today, and there weren’t many official campgrounds.

Because people were so desperate, camp robbing in those days was a fairly frequent occurrence. And camp robbers often murdered the campers so as to leave no witnesses.

Prior to embarking on the trip. my step-grandfather packed along a shot gun. When they found their spot and set up their camp, he placed that shot gun on the roof of his car, where it could plainly be seen from the roadway, above. He remained watchful.

Before long, three rough-looking men parked their car on the road directly above the campsite. Grandpa spotted them, and he watched from a safe distance as these men started down the trail toward the camp.

Suddenly, one of them spotted the shot gun, and all three stopped, huddled, and had a little discussion. One or more of them would occasionally look back in the direction of Grandpa’s car with the shot gun on its roof.

They finally turned around and headed back to their car, got inside, and drove away.

Daddy never forgot the lesson he learned that day. You have to provide your own protection and make sure others know it. You can’t depend on someone else taking care of you if you find yourself in a menacing situation. And, you have to be alert.

It isn’t always necessary to fire a gun to discourage an attack. Grandpa didn’t have to fire his. He just had to make it clear that he could. That was all it took for Daddy and his family to return home safely.

 

[Rau]

Criminals are going to use guns illegally regardless of how openly available they are.

This kind of misses the point about normalization. When guns are commonplace, they are reached for more readily. They are reached for “just in case”; They introduce lethal force into situations not warranting it. They aren’t locked up properly. They fall into the hands of unstable people as the perceived means to solve a problem. And in each case the users may be people we’d in other respects regard as law-abiding.

For countries where guns are not commonplace, where they have not become “ordinary”, I’d encourage them to remain that way.

 

[JanR]

And you’ve missed my point.

Grandpa had placed his shot gun on the roof of his car, “just in case.” He stayed close by and watchful, “just in case.” It was meant as a deterrent, and it was.

What do you think would have happened if he had been unarmed? Daddy might not have lived to marry my mother and bring me and my siblings into the world.

“Just in case” means being prepared. Usually, that’s all it means.

That some people are unstable or just plain evil doesn’t change the need to be prepared, “just in case”. It’s the unstable folks that we sometimes have to defend ourselves against.

As for normalization of guns, there was a time when nearly everyone owned a gun and knew how to use it. There were the lawless – then and now. There will always be the lawless. Most folks are good folks who refuse to fall victims to the lawless. Without a means of defense, they’re at the mercy of the unstable and the lawless, and those folks may not show any mercy.

I’ve made my point. It’s a valid one. You can take it or leave it.

 

[Rau]

Grandpa had placed his shot gun on the roof of his car, “just in case.”

It was a nice story and it worked out.

I’ve made my point. It’s a valid one. You can take it or leave it.

Me too.

 

[RuthAnne]

They aren’t locked up properly

If they’re locked up they are of no use. What are you going to do when someone breaks in? Say, “Please hold on while I unlock my gun cabinet!” Sheesh … we keep our guns loaded and ready in our unlocked night stands.

 

[pnewton]

If they’re locked up they are of no use. What are you going to do when someone breaks in?

I would never tell anyone how to store their weapons, but this idea that no one ever has anytime is and exaggeration. Unless one’s bedroom window is the entry point, something that should be impossible or difficult, then one has a few minutes. The average burglar spends 8-12 minutes in a house.

I would encourage anyone spending money to protect themselves with deadly force, to get more thought to protecting themselves without deadly force with proper locks, alarms, motion-activated lights, shrubbery at windows, etc. The stuff that can save a burglar’s life. Then, one can also have more confidence should a burglar make it to your room that he is indeed an immediate and dangerous threat.

 

[RuthAnne]

I would never tell anyone how to store their weapons

Thank you.

 

[JanR]

And this reminds me of a major unfairness in our so-called justice system:

A burglar who enters another person’s home is an invader. Period. That is a home invasion, whether he violently breaks down a door or crawls silently through a window while the occupants are sleeping. He has still invaded their home.

Who is to assume when a burglar is or isn’t an immediate and dangerous threat? Is one to frisk him to see if he’s armed? Many a homeowner has been murdered because they surprised a burglar who wasn’t expecting to be caught on the premises.

The injustice is that, unfortunately, one can’t just wound an invasive burglar and leave him alive. That burglar can turn around and sue the homeowner who shot him, and actually win in court! Even though HE was in the wrong by invading the home to begin with! HE was the one trespassing with the intent to steal or worse. Yet, HE can get awarded millions of dollars in a lawsuit if the homeowner wounds but doesn’t kill him.

So, in order to avoid this, as one judge informed a homeowner against whom he was levying a stiff judgment in favor of the burglar who crawled through their bedroom window, you have to KILL him.

It makes no sense at all to punish the homeowner when the burglar is the one committing the crime. If anything, the burglar should consider himself lucky to be alive, and grateful that he WASN’T killed!

The courts don’t see it that way.

Our “justice” system is broken, and this is just one more example of it.

 

[Rau]

I would never tell anyone how to store their weapons,

Are there no laws about this in the US?

Then, one can also have more confidence should a burglar make it to your room that he is indeed an immediate and dangerous threat.

In the US, is it permitted to shoot (ie use deadly force) against an intruder, or must one have proper grounds to fear for one’s own life?

 

[Rau]

A burglar who enters another person’s home is an invader. Period. That is a home invasion, whether he violently breaks down a door or crawls silently through a window while the occupants are sleeping. He has still invaded their home.

The law typically captures the actions of a burglar as a trespass / break and enter with intent to steal. A home invasion typically reflects a violent entry which has no regard for being “found out” because the invader’s motives and or means are quite different (more heinous).

Of course, this is not to say a burglar may not carry a weapon and make a choice to use it to avoid apprehension. Typically the law limits the victim to necessary and justifiable force - trespass and/or burglary itself not justifying homicide. You are right that such an approach raises slightly the risk we burglary victims may face if we confront a burglar. But were that not the approach, we’d arguably be justified in installing “man-traps” - Eg. Devices that electrocute trespassers for their mere presence.

So, in order to avoid this, as one judge informed a homeowner against whom he was levying a stiff judgment in favor of the burglar who crawled through their bedroom window, you have to KILL him.

Does US law deem such a killing justifiable? I don’t know US law.

 

[AlNg]

Catholics are not pacifists.

Some Catholics are pacifists.

 

[pnewton]

In the US, is it permitted to shoot (ie use deadly force) against an intruder, or must one have proper grounds to fear for one’s own life?

Yes and yes. As a rule, an intruder needs to be defined, and that might make a difference. The scenario above was speaking of a burglar at night. In that situation, one can, legally, shoot first, as there is a presumption of danger. You do not have to wait until you are shot at, or see a gun drawn.

Morally, I would say that one would need some indication of immediate threat, but in the above situation, almost any indication would suffice, as it is so easy to be killed. Burglarizing a home is the second highest crime we have here, being a felony of the second degree, as it is a serious threat to life, as well as loss of property.

 

[Katie777]

My nephew accidentally shot a friend.

But if you shoot someone I was told to drag them in the house. Eek

 

[AlNg]

Are all weapons Satan’s inventions?

I am not sure that they are all Satan’s inventions, but I think that the use of nuclear bombs would be immoral. You can’t avoid killing innocent people if an atom bomb is dropped anywhere near a city.

 

[Rau]

The scenario above was speaking of a burglar at night. In that situation, one can, legally, shoot first, as there is a presumption of danger. You do not have to wait until you are shot at, or see a gun drawn.

That’s notable. Your saying the mere presence is enough to presume a threat to life? Is it the same in all States? And killing the guy brings no police action, but wounding him will likely bring civil suit?

I must say this reinforces stereotypes of the US - a bit loose with guns and a bit litigant crazy!