Is there a Right to own a gun; Ethics of Gun Ownership

No, it is the people that do not own guns and shoot them on a regular basis, those are the ones that contribute to crime by getting killed, unarmed victims.
Contributory neglect.

 

That is good but America's problem with crime is a complex net including substandard education, racism (not really a word I like to use), a have/have not class system, unemployment, socio-wealth bullying standards, corruption in the courts/political/police sector, and I could go on. There is a growing percentage of American citizens who are getting the life squeezed out of them. Many try to escape through drugs but that costs money. You've got crime, lots of crime ... and crime is the only way out for so many people. Putting holes in one another is not going to solve your problems. The US needs to curb its gun problem.

What do you want a gun for? Let's discuss that.

 

If you want intelligent feedback then you should stop the silly stuff and contribute intelligent ideas. Is that so difficult?

 

See, I brought up a point I think is a valid one and you attacked me for it. You sneer that it's "stupid" and "silly" and impugn my intelligence. Sorry, that's not where respectful discourse begins. You have made no legitimate effort that I can see, and I'm not going to force you.

So, I posted the following in response to a couple of questions you asked. I thought my response was intelligent, well though out... and respectful. You chose not to respond in any way to it and I'm curious why?

"It is my position that laws are there to define what society finds acceptable. It is the morality of each individual that ultimately compels them to conform to or to defy the law. All laws achieve is enabling society to punish those who refuse to comply; it can not physically prevent someone from choosing to violate the law. A murderer, obviously, cares nothing for the law, and if an honest, peaceable citizen finds himself confronted by such a creature then he can and should have the means to protect himself and his family available to him.

My "notion" is not odd, nor is it "uncivilized"... and even Jesus bade his disciples to have a sword. Most religious/spiritual philosophies find defense of one's self and family to be both moral and ethical.

My grandfather spent 40 years as a law enforcement officer, and I spent a number of years in the security and law-enforcement fields myself. We saw the aftermath of what depraved societal predators like to do to innocent, helpless people. The killers didn't usually use guns either. I've also been to the aftermaths where a family was shaken but unhurt, and the predator neutralized, because the family was armed and effectively defended themselves; all we had to do as law enforcement officers was take out the trash. Guess which side of that equation I choose to be on??

No society, no matter how "civilized", can physically protect innocent people from crime and violence. Every society has violence; some more than others, but we know that it is due to a myriad of factors. Some places have lax gun control and low crime, others not. Some places have strict gun control and high crime, others not. In the end, ANY society that would strip their citizens of the right to protect themselves and leaves them defenseless surrenders any claim to being "civilized" IMHO."

 

Such is a gross misunderstanding of what the use of lethal force for the purpose of self defense entails. It is the legal requirement of being compelled by law to make an effort to retreat from a location you have every right to be, before you are legally able to use force to defend yourself, that is being objected to.

The above described scenario would be illegal even under the stand your ground laws currently in place. Charges and prosecution would result from such.

Thus ignoring the matter of violence seeking out private individuals for the purpose of victimizing them for no legitimate reason. The entire post presented by yourself is an outright dismissal of the concept of self defense, categorizing it as being nothing more than a matter of offended masculinity, when such could not be further from the truth.

 

Factually incorrect.

 

"Examining decades of crime data, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it would have been had the state not adopted the law....

"To put the significance of a 15-percent increase in violent crime in perspective, the paper notes that 'the average RTC state would have to double its prison population to counteract the RTC-induced increase in violent crime.' "
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

How can a policy which results in a 13-15% increase in violent crime be ethical? How can burdening taxpayers with the cost of imprisoning more people due to such an increase be ethical?

 

Um, the murder rate in US prisons in the last 14 years is at least 5 per 100k, despite no guns, 24 hour surveillance, the police only seconds away from any attack, and iron bars everywhere.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/msp0114st.pdf

Ever notice how politicians and people who don't want the general population to have guns have 24 hour armed security services?

How many guns are there in the UK Parliament do you think?

 

Which is a lie, because it equates justified shootings and killing of criminals in the act of commitment of crimes as "Gun Violence" hence my objection to the use of the term.

Both you and Vegas Giants object to the cost of Incarceration of repeat offenders, the alternative is what then ?
Take Guns away from people and reduce them to Murdered Victims, is that your answer ???

 

No, those are the "marks" or "victims" in the story.

 

Great.

Give us a real life example of such a thing happening.

Two guys who are both legally carrying firearms who get into a pissing contest and start shooting at each other.

Go ahead.

 

Silent Lambs to the slaughter.

 

The above "study" does not present evidence that actually proves those who are issued concealed carry permits, are actually the ones going out and committing violent crime. It using a causation/correlation approach, suggesting that one is linked to the other. Such is not the case. To the contrary there is actual evidence showing the opposite, and demonstrating that the revocation of concealed carry permits for the commission of a crime is exceedingly rare, to the point of being statistically insignificant.

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/deliver...9116114008072116080094106086029078021&EXT=pdf

 

The irony here is pretty funny.

You ok?

 

Are you sure? I thought this time I had hit on something that was fact.

 

This post represents you motive for the discussion in this forum; it’s using the gun right/control debate to frame your opinion about Americans; Americans be Bad, uncivilized, louts with an inferiority complex. It’s obvious because of your arrogant attitude toward other posters and lack of substance to offer in the debate. Well, that's very civilized of you.

 

What difference does it make if I am not a prohibited person and I don't intend to commit a crime?

 

Careful now, he’s got paisley unicorns in his reality.

 

His relates to the Royal question, as it relates to prohibition of Arms to Commoners and Priveledges douled out to lesser inferior men.

 

This is why we can't have respectful debate

 

You'd have to repeat it

 

That's just crazy! Everyone knows unicorns only come in stripes and solids. Paisley, how silly/

 

When does that start?

 

I know. I don't know why I bother. LOL

 

What do I need with a Gun ?
Aside from having been a Constable and other assorted LEOs in other Countries.



Layaway Available

$286.34
$278.00
I need this gun !