I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

[race aficionado]

I'm just happy I live in a society where it is not required to own a firearm to defend myself. .... the society I live in has evolved over a long period of time.

Evolution . . . . I like that concept.

mokin:

[chuck34]

It may be an exaggeration but I can only relate to the views expressed here and the reasons people give for needing firearms. I hear all to often in the 'United States' you are free and have an old law that enables you to own a firearm. Its part of your freedom and you need them to defend your homes should the government turn nasty or armed people decide to invade or steal from your homes. If thats the case then you most definately need them.

I honestly don't understand where your views are coming from. Practically no one in the US needs a firearm. It's just a nice thing to have if you are unlucky enough to be one of those 0.01% (or thereabouts) that is the victim of a home invasion. There is story after story over here about some poor sap that tried to rob an armed citizen, only to find out that the home owner had a gun. I'm willing to bet that there are more "success" stories of gun ownership than there are tragedies like the OP. But the news being the news, "if it bleeds it leads". So you hardly ever hear about the robberies/murders/rapes that have been prevented by guns.

If you are ever unlucky enough to be the victim of a home invasion (and I pray that you are not). Will you think to yourself "Thank God I don't have a gun that might go off accidentally in a one in a million freak accident", or will it be "Damn it, I wish I had a gun to stop this S-O-B!!"? I know you will answer something along the lines of "it's so improbable that it's not worth thinking about". But an accident is just as improbable, especially if everyone in your household is trained in firearm use.

And as Starter asks, where is this place that requires firearm ownership you claimed? Oh yeah it's Switzerland. What are the crime rates like there? Is it possible that guns aren't the cause of crimes????????

[chuck34]

I hear all to often in the 'United States' you are free and have an old law that enables you to own a firearm.

I know this may be a bit off topic, but ......

I also don't understand this mindset. Who cares if the law is old or not? Why does that matter? The right to free speech is also old, should we outlaw that one? How about the right to freely practice your religion? A free press? How about the right to a jury trial? Or the right to face your accusers? I could go on and on. Those are all "old" laws. I suppose we should just get rid of them right? Especially that pesky free speech one. I mean with the internet these days, people will just say whatever they want. We can't have that now, can we? Come one the internet wasn't even thought of in 1790, so why should the right to free speech apply to the internet?

I am completely honest in this. Why should the 2nd Amendment be thrown out simply because it is "old"? While the 1st Amendment can be kept around.

[Eki]

Policement are just simple humans like everyone else with all the failing.

At least here they get few years of education and training. And screening for the education and training are quite strict.

[Eki]

I know this may be a bit off topic, but ......

I also don't understand this mindset. Who cares if the law is old or not? Why does that matter? The right to free speech is also old, should we outlaw that one? How about the right to freely practice your religion? A free press? How about the right to a jury trial? Or the right to face your accusers? I could go on and on. Those are all "old" laws. I suppose we should just get rid of them right? Especially that pesky free speech one. I mean with the internet these days, people will just say whatever they want. We can't have that now, can we? Come one the internet wasn't even thought of in 1790, so why should the right to free speech apply to the internet?

I am completely honest in this. Why should the 2nd Amendment be thrown out simply because it is "old"? While the 1st Amendment can be kept around.

"Free" is relative. In 1790 "free" was not for women and black people, among others. Should we bring back slavery and abolish woman's right to vote just because that's the way things were in 1790?

[Bob Riebe]

"Free" is relative. In 1790 "free" was not for women and black people, among others. Should we bring back slavery and abolish woman's right to vote just because that's the way things were in 1790?

Let's see, you equate taking away freedoms gained, with taking or giving away a "right" granted by the founding Fathers from the get-go.

OK, what would anyone gain here by giving up these freedoms and a right?
This would serve what purpose how?

[airshifter]

I'm just happy I live in a society where it is not required to own a firearm to defend myself. The chances of getting shot over here are almost none existant unless you are unfortunate to be caught in some kind of gang related shooting (with illegal firearms) which is incredibly rare anyway. England, Wales and Scotland have a past which is one of the bloodiest in history, yet thankfully we have a stable country where the majority are law abiding and not living in fear of being attacked. I can appreciate we are lucky in that respect though and don't feel other countries need to de-arm themselves as the society I live in has evolved over a long period of time.

The vast majority of murders in the US that take place with a gun are also gang related, and the majority are also people under the age of 25. For the average person smart enough to stay away from bad areas there is certainly no requirement to own a gun. Nobody is required to have one, and the majority of people I know who own guns owned guns for hunting and shooting primarily, and have them for self defense if every needed. I don't think I know of a single person that purchased a gun for no use other than self defense.

Though the murder rate in the US hasn't gone down much and remains very high by the standards of developed nations, the violent crime rate has gone down quite a lot. More and more states allow concealed carry of weapons and/or various "castle" laws. Violent crime rates are substantially lower here than in the UK and most of europe for that matter. I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.

[Eki]

I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.

I don't believe that. They wouldn't be doing crimes if they believed they'll fail. It's just another factor they'll have to take into account by having guns themselves and using the element of surprise. People trying to be heroes will result people becoming dead.

[Eki]

Not quite true. Women had no right to vote, but there were many free blacks even then.

Did the free blacks have the right to vote?

[janvanvurpa]

The vast majority of murders in the US that take place with a gun are also gang related, and the majority are also people under the age of 25. For the average person smart enough to stay away from bad areas there is certainly no requirement to own a gun. Nobody is required to have one, and the majority of people I know who own guns owned guns for hunting and shooting primarily, and have them for self defense if every needed. I don't think I know of a single person that purchased a gun for no use other than self defense.

Though the murder rate in the US hasn't gone down much and remains very high by the standards of developed nations, the violent crime rate has gone down quite a lot. More and more states allow concealed carry of weapons and/or various "castle" laws. Violent crime rates are substantially lower here than in the UK and most of europe for that matter. I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004
Victim/Offender Relationships

Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004