me inactive

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

This is getting interesting. I support gun control laws, but I know full well that they won't stop anyone determined to kill from getting a gun. I simply think government has the right to decide whether to regulate dangerous instrumentalities. It is a theoretical position: If a product is outlawed, there is no longer a public market for it. Black markets fill in the gap. There will still be commerce in guns, but just not as much. I think a legislature could reasonbly think that at least by closing the public market they could reduce commerce in guns. And if there is less commerce in guns, there will be fewer armed brigands. Admittedly, this is a syllogistic, hyper-logical argument that does not correspond with reality. But I still think government has power to regulate dangerous things, including guns. Further, there is nothing government can do to repress human beings' murderous instincts. People will always kill each other, but government has the right to take steps that might make it slightly more difficult for them to kill. In my view, gun control laws are merely an attempt to make killing more practically difficult on your typical, barbaric citizen. They are certainly not an attempt to ban all guns; that is simply impossible.

Indy, I like your point about government having a monopoly on deadly force against citizens. Interestingly, the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) was designed to prevent government from disarming the population. But the Framers were not worried about disarmament for its own sake. They were worried about disarmament with a view to stamping out resistance to tyrants like George III. Obviously you can't have a successful revolt without muskets, and English kings preserved their tyrannies by taking away the people's muskets before they had a chance to revolt. Such "anti-revolutionary" disarmament was prevalent in 17th Century England. Today, our concern with gun possession is fundamentally different. We disarm the people to protect them from each other, not to defend illegitimate monarchs.

Getting back to the deadly force question: Government always asserts a monopoly on deadly force against the citizens. That is the foundation of all government power! Men would not respect a king who did not hold power over the physical well-being of the people. To enforce his laws, he exacted physical revenge on the criminals' bodies, terrifying the others into obedience. Still, there are cases when private citizens have the "legal right" to kill fellow citizens, such as self-defense. You may lawfully kill someone to prevent that person from killing you. The government does not play a role in that killing. And you will not pay a fine or spend an hour in jail because of it.

[mrsniffler]

collecting guns is sorta a hobby
something i like

not cause its "cool"

i couldnt care less about what other people thought about my guns xD

[Soccerman771]

Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.[/quote]

That sounds like the right approach to gun control. I have no objections to responsible people registering their guns for legitimate purposes, such as defending your home from intrusion. If government makes you go through a few bureaucratic hoops to get a gun, is that such a bad thing? I think reasonable gun regulations are good: We need to know who is buying the gun. Laws that help answer that question are justifiable, imo.

[Blackadderthe4th]

[quote=""Soccerman771""]Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.[/quote]

The government making it easy to protect your homes and families what a novel idea someone should suggest that to the British government...

[GeneralMichael]

As long as little kids and the crazy people don't have guns I'm fine too. Note to self do not piss off Switzerland or Texas thier entire populations could take part in the military... well atleast Texas switzerland will atleast be able to have the majority of thier people in the military.

[joe4holly]

[quote=""Blackadderthe4th""][quote=""Soccerman771""]Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.[/quote]

The government making it easy to protect your homes and families what a novel idea someone should suggest that to the British government...[/quote]
Think about how many teans that have been killed with a knife/gun on the street evry year? Why give them easier for them to pick up a gun?

[Blackadderthe4th]

I was talking mainly about point 2 being able to protect your home from a burglar without being arrested when you knock the guy out with a bat.

[36drew]

[quote=""Blackadderthe4th""]I was talking mainly about point 2 being able to protect your home from a burglar without being arrested when you knock the guy out with a bat.[/quote]

Should be able to kill him as far as I am concerned, no questions asked. I've spoken with an RCMP around here, and he says that its better to kill someone than to injure them -- you are MUCH less likely to do time.

Messed up if you ask me.

[Soccerman771]

[quote=""joe4holly""][quote=""Blackadderthe4th""][quote=""Soccerman771""]Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.[/quote]

The government making it easy to protect your homes and families what a novel idea someone should suggest that to the British government...[/quote]
Think about how many teans that have been killed with a knife/gun on the street evry year? Why give them easier for them to pick up a gun?[/quote]

The number of people killed by drunk drivers exceeds both. We should take the cars away.

[Blackadderthe4th]

[quote=""Soccerman771""][quote=""joe4holly""][quote=""Blackadderthe4th""][quote=""Soccerman771""]Nice points Craz3n. I'll add the following.

Switzerland has a rough population of 7.6 million people and about 420,000 REGISTERED assault rifles in private homes, not counting military and private-issue assault rifles totalling between 2-3 million assault weapons. They also have one of the lowest murder/crime rates in Europe.

Part of the belief of them having a low crime rate is: 1. You don't know which house has an assualt rifle protecting it, so you don't know which houses to break into. & 2. The government makes it easier for someone to protect their houses/family/possessions.[/quote]

The government making it easy to protect your homes and families what a novel idea someone should suggest that to the British government...[/quote]
Think about how many teans that have been killed with a knife/gun on the street evry year? Why give them easier for them to pick up a gun?[/quote]

The number of people killed by drunk drivers exceeds both. We should take the cars away.[/quote]

The cars and not the alcohol?

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

In the English tradition, a "man's home is his castle." If a person breaks into your "castle" and threatens your life, the law allows you to lawfully kill the intruder. It's not murder; it's a "privileged killing." Very few people object to this rule. It is very popular for the same reason we punish burglars worse than pickpockets: Both steal, but burglars violate THE HOME, and the home is special.

But consider this: What if you have a summer home and you worry about people stealing your things in the off-season? Say you set up a spring gun so that when a burglar attempts to force his way through a door, the spring goes off and fires a shotgun at him. Mind you, you are not in the house; you are back in your winter home. The only reason you set up the spring gun was to protect your household items from thieves. Should that be allowed?

[36drew]

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]In the English tradition, a "man's home is his castle." If a person breaks into your "castle" and threatens your life, the law allows you to lawfully kill the intruder. It's not murder; it's a "privileged killing." Very few people object to this rule. It is very popular for the same reason we punish burglars worse than pickpockets: Both steal, but burglars violate THE HOME, and the home is special.

But consider this: What if you have a summer home and you worry about people stealing your things in the off-season? Say you set up a spring gun so that when a burglar attempts to force his way through a door, the spring goes off and fires a shotgun at him. Mind you, you are not in the house; you are back in your winter home. The only reason you set up the spring gun was to protect your household items from thieves. Should that be allowed?[/quote]

ROFL at your theoreotical side bro, I love it.

I think it's a bit abstract since who the heck sets up a spring gun? I know the point your trying to make -- no one is at risk despite it being a violation of space (which IMO is just as bad -- very subjective of course though). So IMO, I wouldn't care if a spring gun took out a burglar stealing something from a house. Shouldn't have been stealing in the first place. I would have no problem allowing it other than the fact I bet that that door would get opened by a lot of people OTHER than the a burglar. A person with a few less hours sleep could easily shot themselves that way when they walk into their own spring gun armed cabin. Or a kid opening a door somehow, etc.

[GeneralMichael]

[quote=""36drew""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]In the English tradition, a "man's home is his castle." If a person breaks into your "castle" and threatens your life, the law allows you to lawfully kill the intruder. It's not murder; it's a "privileged killing." Very few people object to this rule. It is very popular for the same reason we punish burglars worse than pickpockets: Both steal, but burglars violate THE HOME, and the home is special.

But consider this: What if you have a summer home and you worry about people stealing your things in the off-season? Say you set up a spring gun so that when a burglar attempts to force his way through a door, the spring goes off and fires a shotgun at him. Mind you, you are not in the house; you are back in your winter home. The only reason you set up the spring gun was to protect your household items from thieves. Should that be allowed?[/quote]

ROFL at your theoreotical side bro, I love it.

I think it's a bit abstract since who the heck sets up a spring gun? I know the point your trying to make -- no one is at risk despite it being a violation of space (which IMO is just as bad -- very subjective of course though). So IMO, I wouldn't care if a spring gun took out a burglar stealing something from a house. Shouldn't have been stealing in the first place. I would have no problem allowing it other than the fact I bet that that door would get opened by a lot of people OTHER than the a burglar. A person with a few less hours sleep could easily shot themselves that way when they walk into their own spring gun armed cabin. Or a kid opening a door somehow, etc.[/quote]

Yeah and what if you asked somebody to egt something from your house for you and ship it to you and you forget to tell them about the springloaded shotgun. 8O
It would be safer if you could get and alarm and find a way to remote control the gun so you could move it around (incase they come in through a window) and shoot it.

[Kaiser_von_Nuben]

[quote=""36drew""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]In the English tradition, a "man's home is his castle." If a person breaks into your "castle" and threatens your life, the law allows you to lawfully kill the intruder. It's not murder; it's a "privileged killing." Very few people object to this rule. It is very popular for the same reason we punish burglars worse than pickpockets: Both steal, but burglars violate THE HOME, and the home is special.

But consider this: What if you have a summer home and you worry about people stealing your things in the off-season? Say you set up a spring gun so that when a burglar attempts to force his way through a door, the spring goes off and fires a shotgun at him. Mind you, you are not in the house; you are back in your winter home. The only reason you set up the spring gun was to protect your household items from thieves. Should that be allowed?[/quote]

ROFL at your theoreotical side bro, I love it.

I think it's a bit abstract since who the heck sets up a spring gun? I know the point your trying to make -- no one is at risk despite it being a violation of space (which IMO is just as bad -- very subjective of course though). So IMO, I wouldn't care if a spring gun took out a burglar stealing something from a house. Shouldn't have been stealing in the first place. I would have no problem allowing it other than the fact I bet that that door would get opened by a lot of people OTHER than the a burglar. A person with a few less hours sleep could easily shot themselves that way when they walk into their own spring gun armed cabin. Or a kid opening a door somehow, etc.[/quote]

Hehe, this is my biggest side! I am the most theoretical, yet least practical person in the world. Perhaps that explains my good macro and horrible micro!