[sideus]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGMTB4NTL1.DTL

The right to own guns may be even more important than the right to marry, Thomas said during the monthly shooting practice organized by the gay gun group the Pink Pistols.

[OldManMac]

Good for them. I agree, not so much because of their fear of persecution, but because it is all citizens' rights to bear arms (and arm bears ). If they have realistic fears, then they should be allowed to address those as well.

[itistoday]

Hehe... the "Pink Pistols"... how incredibly gay...

[vmarks]

I scored 100 on their candidates questionnaire when I ran for office.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...en&start=2

Scroll down until you see the highlighted name.

[itistoday]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I scored 100 on their candidates questionnaire when I ran for office.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...en&start=2

Scroll down until you see the highlighted name.

I agree with most of those points, but why would you say no to this:

Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?

[Millennium]

Good for them. If only more people thought this way.

[sideus]

Originally posted by itistoday:
I agree with most of those points, but why would you say no to this:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe that firearms and/or firearm owners should be registered? Which ones and why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criminals are not going to register their firearm, so what is the point?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Even though Toronto has the second highest gay population you would never see crap like that up here

[OldManMac]

What kind of "crap" are you referring to?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by KarlG:
What kind of "crap" are you referring to?

The right to have a dangerous weapon over equal rights.

[OldManMac]

One of the principal purposes of owning a weapon is to protect one's self. As it is every American's right to own weapons, I see no problem with this scenario. Would you rather have these people barred from being able to protect themselves, because they are gay?

[bubblewrap]

Gays do have equal rights.(except marriage, but that will propably end)
But even if homosexuals had all of the rights they think they're denied, there would still be violent acts against them.
You can't change human nature. There will always be mean assholes.

Let them have their guns. May they learn to to use them safely.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
One of the principal purposes of owning a weapon is to protect one's self. As it is every American's right to own weapons, I see no problem with this scenario. Would you rather have these people barred from being able to protect themselves, because they are gay?

I thought about mentioning this the other week when we were all brawling over the issue of guns and self defense in home invasions. Someone (I don't remember who) said something to the effect that very few home invasions where the residents are at home actually result in any violence to the residents if the residents cooperate with the burglars.

Reading the gay press, there seems to be a huge exception, and that is where the burglars break in and find the house occupied by a gay couple. Those cases seem to turn violent and murderous with alarming frequency. I have seen several reported cases over the years where burglars have apparently flipped out when they break in and find a gay couple in bed. The very sight can apparently turn a simple robbery into homicide (or worse). There are also other situations similar such as the double homicide of the lesbian couple who were out camping in the Shenandoah Valley a few years ago. As I recall, the FBI determined that being lesbian had a lot to do with the savagery of what befell them.

I still don't own a weapon, but this is an issue I ponder.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I thought about mentioning this the other week when we were all brawling over the issue of guns and self defense in home invasions. Someone (I don't remember who) said something to the effect that very few home invasions where the residents are at home actually result in any violence to the residents if the residents cooperate with the burglars.

Reading the gay press, there seems to be a huge exception, and that is where the burglars break in and find the house occupied by a gay couple. Those cases seem to turn violent and murderous with alarming frequency. I have seen several reported cases over the years where burglars have apparently flipped out when they break in and find a gay couple in bed. The very sight can apparently turn a simple robbery into homicide (or worse). There are also other situations similar such as the double homicide of the lesbian couple who were out camping in the Shenandoah Valley a few years ago. As I recall, the FBI determined that being lesbian had a lot to do with the savagery of what befell them.

I still don't own a weapon, but this is an issue I ponder.

Interesting. I wonder if there are stats on how many home invasions have actually been thwarted because there was a gun in the house. I'd also be curious to see how many home invasions went from robbery to shoot-out because a gun was pulled on the burglar.

[BoomStick]

I shot a home invader back in '92.

He got 5 off and I fired back once.



Just a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta a couple took out a couple of dirtbags that were robbing their store. The dirtbags fired first because the woman didn't open the register fast enough.

Good for her, 2 less dirtbags to have to feed and house for a year or two just to get out and kill again.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by KarlG:
One of the principal purposes of owning a weapon is to protect one's self.

Probably a good idea in the US as it has such a high crime rate.

Can't help but notice that most people don't have the same "protect yourself" attitude in other parts of the world have have lower crime rates.


Hmmmmm

[bubblewrap]

Like London?

About bloody time.

[BoomStick]

So why is England's crime rate higher than the US?

They banned guns altogether. It's supposed to be a utopia now.

Canadia has a much higher arson and auto theft rate than the US.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by KarlG:
One of the principal purposes of owning a weapon is to protect one's self.

That may be one of the principal reasons that people get guns, but I think there's a serious question about whether having a gun actually is a protective factor. Most of what I've read suggests the opposite - that you put yourself at greater risk when you have a gun in the home, perhaps because the likelihood of a home invasion is so low.

[TETENAL]

What has arson got to do with guns? How do you defend against an arsonist with a hand-gun?

Maybe England has a higher crime rate, but it has a lower homicide rate. Different countries value different things. In England the people value their lifes higher than their cars. In America without property you are screwed anyway, so you defend it till the end.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
In America without property you are screwed anyway, so you defend it till the end.

Where does this come from? America is capitalist, but it's not feudal.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Can't help but notice that most people don't have the same "protect yourself" attitude in other parts of the world have have lower crime rates.

It's a circular argument; in America there are more guns, so more guns are needed to defend against all those guns.

[bubblewrap]

Then how do you explain Switzerland, Spain and France?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Canadia has a much higher arson and auto theft rate than the US.

Nothing to to do with guns but ok

Are you saying that Canada would have less arson and auto left if we were shooting the bad guys?

[bubblewrap]

No, if matches and lighters were outlawed, it would solve the problem.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
What has arson got to do with guns? How do you defend against an arsonist with a hand-gun?

Maybe England has a higher crime rate, but it has a lower homicide rate. Different countries value different things. In England the people value their lifes higher than their cars. In America without property you are screwed anyway, so you defend it till the end.

I don't know where you got the whole "In America without property you are screwed anyway..." bit, I've never seen any sort of evidence to support such a statement in the 21 years I've been living here. I'll give you the second part though, I've worked hard for what I have, and no on is taking what's mine away. Simple as that. If you come into my home and try to take what I've worked for, you best be covered in kevlar down to your undies.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I don't know where you got the whole "In America without property you are screwed anyway..." bit, I've never seen any sort of evidence to support such a statement in the 21 years I've been living here. I'll give you the second part though, I've worked hard for what I have, and no on is taking what's mine away. Simple as that. If you come into my home and try to take what I've worked for, you best be covered in kevlar down to your undies.

Well ya that is all fine and good, someone came into my house I would use one of my decorative swords oh em.

I think the problem is these "protective" guns are being used more for everything else BUT protecting your home.

Also your family member is also more likely to shoot themselves or each other.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
If you come into my home and try to take what I've worked for, you best be covered in kevlar down to your undies.

I don't even think it's legal in most places to shoot someone for property alone. Aside from the moral question...

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't even think it's legal in most places to shoot someone for property alone. Aside from the moral question...

Well, yeah, you're right of course. I'm not going to gun down every jackass that breaks into my house (which has yet to happen, by the way), I would only use lethal force if necessary. If I caught someone who is unarmed breaking in to my house, they get a world-class beating. If they are armed, they are going to have a very bad day indeed.

[bubblewrap]

Where I live, it's shoot first, ask questions later.
Don't break into my home. My wife has a .45 and knows how to use it.

Not bad for a liberal ballet instructor... <<=== Clicky for video...

[finboy]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Where I live, it's shoot first, ask questions later.
Don't break into my home. My wife has a .45 and knows how to use it.

Not bad for a liberal ballet instructor... <<=== Clicky for video...

My wife packs a 22 with a laser sight. As she points out "shot placement is everything."

[bubblewrap]

Here's my .45!

[glideslope]

The important point is to ensure that the intruders body is at least 50% inside the doorway as you shoot them on the way out.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Also your family member is also more likely to shoot themselves or each other.

More likely? Really?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Where I live, it's shoot first, ask questions later.
Don't break into my home. My wife has a .45 and knows how to use it.

Not bad for a liberal ballet instructor... <<=== Clicky for video...

Wow that's sooooo cooooooool

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Wow that's sooooo cooooooool

Can your wife do that?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More likely? Really?

Sure, there's an increased risk of injury in the household when there's a gun there. It stands to reason.

So, the question remains: why do people put up with the expense and the increased risk? So they can play Rambo in the mirror? Not likely -- there must be some benefit to owning and learning how to use weapons legally.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

I applaud any group that chooses to recognize that benefit, whether they're gay, left-handed, big-eared, or purple. It's a recognition of a basic fact, albeit a politicized one.

I've always wanted to use albeit in a sentence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
Sure, there's an increased risk of injury in the household when there's a gun there. It stands to reason.

I wasn't questioning the increased risk. He claimed a house with a gun is more likely to kill someone in your family than to protect. That isn't the same thing.

BTW, there is more of an increased risk of death from owning a car, than a gun.

Gonna ditch the car?

[finboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

That isn't the same thing.

[/B]

Right, it isn't. He was stating conjecture and the other (increased risk of injury) is a fact.

I'm not giving up my car any time soon, and you're right -- chance of injury is higher from owning a car.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I wasn't questioning the increased risk. He claimed a house with a gun is more likely to kill someone in your family than to protect. That isn't the same thing. [/B]

See the studies by Kellerman. It depends on how you frame the comparison. I think it's very clear that a gun in the house is more likely to kill a family member than to kill an intruder. People killing intruders in their homes is so rare as to be close to non-existent; suicides and domestic homicides are, unfortunately, not rare. The counter-argument is that most protective uses of guns aren't lethal - it may be enough to say "I've got a gun" to get the intruder to skedaddle without shooting him.

[Zimphire]

The homicides and suicides are going to happen gun or not.

I mean one could even use a bottle of Sherry.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
The counter-argument is that most protective uses of guns aren't lethal - it may be enough to say "I've got a gun" to get the intruder to skedaddle without shooting him.

And we'll never know how many home entries are avoided by the chance that someone inside has a gun.

[OldManMac]

Every burglar faces the chance that the home owner may have a weapon, yet it doesn't stop burglaries. This is a circular, and nonwinnable, argument.

[bubblewrap]

Maybe we need laws against burglary.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Every burglar faces the chance that the home owner may have a weapon, yet it doesn't stop burglaries. This is a circular, and nonwinnable, argument.

Not to mention if someone enters your house and you don't have one they are most likely to take what they want and leave. If the other party has a gun one or the other is going to end up dead.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by bubblewrap:
Maybe we need laws against burglary.

silly.... we already have those, there could not be any crime.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Not to mention if someone enters your house and you don't have one they are most likely to take what they want and leave. If the other party has a gun one or the other is going to end up dead.

If someone enters your house, and you don't have a gun, and they know you've detected them, there's a good chance that they won't simply take what they want and leave; they may panic at being recognizable, and you'll pay the price. I don't know what burglars are like where you live, but in most places they are not very nice people.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by KarlG:
If someone enters your house, and you don't have a gun, and they know you've detected them, there's a good chance that they won't simply take what they want and leave; they may panic at being recognizable, and you'll pay the price. I don't know what burglars are like where you live, but in most places they are not very nice people.

Ya they might point a gun at you tell you to lay on the ground and shut up.

Than again if they see any weapon in your hands the first thing they will do is start shooting.

[BoomStick]

The one that entered my house started shooting as soon as I flipped the light on.

I gave him exactly what he wanted. A slug to the head with a side order of chalk outline garnished with a large garbage bag.



You CAN'T negotiate with a criminal.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by KarlG:
If someone enters your house, and you don't have a gun, and they know you've detected them, there's a good chance that they won't simply take what they want and leave; they may panic at being recognizable, and you'll pay the price. I don't know what burglars are like where you live, but in most places they are not very nice people.

Criminals by definition don't obey the law, but nevertheless they are a part of the society they live in. They share same opinions and values of that society. They wear clothes that are in fashion currently, they listen to music charts, they have the same religion and all that stuff. Of course with regards to laws they don't follow those values to achieve their criminal goal, or their values are at the border of society, but nevertheless they are part and influenced by society.

Now, America is a very violent society. You love violent movies. You love guns. You execute criminals. You start wars. That means that socially, violence is an accepted mean for problem solving. Of course that is also influencing criminals who then resort to more violence.

In other societies there are no guns and there is no death-penalty etc. There it is totally unaccepted to kill to achieve any goals. Even for the worst mass murderer and child rapist it is not acceptable to execute him. And if you have a society that is less violent as a whole that also shifts criminals to less violent. Of course there will always be individual extremes anywhere, but as an average that is true.

The problem many of you make is that you see criminals as not a part of society. "They get guns anyway", "they shoot you no matte what" etc. is what I always hear. That is not true. Criminals are part of society. And if society goes in one direction or another, so do criminals.