Recently i had to do a speech for my school, and one of the topics i thought about doing my speech on was personal weapon ownage. I changed my mind because i found a different topic to be much more interesting, but i figured i could start a topic about it here on trap17 to find out what your opinion is on the subject.

I personally think that personal gun ownage should be allowed and no laws made against it.

I think this because in today's day in age there are idiots who go around robbing houses, and kidnapping people right from the saftey of our own home. So i think that one needs to have the ability of safley protecting yourself in the sanctuary of your own home even if the means of doing it are by deadly weapon.

Put yourself in the position of a father of a 6 year old daughter and a 16 year old son and all you want to do is be able to protect them. But one day the 14 year old son goes to a friends house and comes home kinda late at night like maybe 9-10 o-clock and the dad has no idea what time his son was coming home all he hears is the door open and close while he is laying in bed, he calls the sons name but no response from the son then you hear the laughter of the daughter in the front room but you think it is a scream followed by sudden silence.

What would you think?

Personally i would have thought that someone broke in and silenced my daughter and was trying to rob the house or something, so how would i protect myself effectively? a baseball bat? i doubt that someone would be afraid of a baseball bat because the most it can do in a couple blows is break a few bones unless the swinger hits in the right places, which is unlikely. and since they aren't too afraid of it, they would probably attempt to disarm you, which would not be hard to do since it's a baseball bat. So instead of a baseball bat, you have a gun pointed at him, the chances are you can get a shot off in their arm before they even get a chance to run towards you and disarm you. working much more effectively at protecting yourself from being hurt and possibly killed.

The reason i provided you with the anecdote is because that has happened to me before, i came home and snuck up behind my sis and scared her and my dad apparently called my name and i didn't hear, so i didn't respond, and since i didn't respond, he said i was lucky he didn't come down the hall with a gun because he had thought someone was breaking in.



Someone in my class did their speech on this, and they suggested that only jobs that require guns like a police officer, security, military etc... should be allowed to legally have guns during their job and only their job. She suggested other things like a baseball bat, or a dog. I don't think that either would be effective. What do you think?

So How do you feel about personal gun ownage? DO you think there should be laws against owing a gun for personal security?

This post has been edited by Albus Dumbledore: Apr 11 2007, 09:35 AM

On the note of baseball bats, people will be afraid of it unless they can defend themselves from it which if they are a robber they may know how to do. Some person with their adrenaline going coming at you swinging it might get you a little worried. But if there is no gun law they are fighting a hopeless fight.

Despite that statement though, I do think guns should be allowed to be owned. With laws against it, the people breaking into your home will still use them. Why? Because they are breaking the law anyway and for them it's the best protection. So then when you do bring up that baseball bat they can just shoot you and you are out of their way. The only people who should be allowed to have a gun are those with a clean criminal record though and I think that's how it is now but they still carry them.

That's the way I see it anyway. If people are gonna come at you with guns, law or not, then you should be able to defend yourself. Sure there are alarm systems which do indeed help keep them out but you can't be too safe. Besides, you can't go hunting without a gun.

I'm unsure on this. Some good points mentioned but it's difficult to tell if this would be for the better. I think it's good for people to know that they can fell safe if they have a weapon for defence. However, i'm not sure I would feel safe knowing that anyone i pass on the street could have a weapon with them at that time.

Personaly, i'm against the idea for this reason:



I feel people would take advantage of this law and abuse it in a way to harm others. By saying that anyone could possess a weapon such as a gun, you may have the problem of young kids being influenced with these weapons and the act of violence justified as a primary solution rather than a last resort. There are other ways around it (i.e. better law enforcement or better detecting technology). Also these "idiots" might become more widespread rather than in certain areas.

This post has been edited by farren: Apr 11 2007, 01:20 PM

yes you are right when you say everyone need guns to protect themselves from robberies and kinapping and such other stuff,but would nt it make easy for the lawbreakers to get access to gun and such other stuff because everyone is able to get it easily,if more guns are mad available it would lead to more voilence let me explain my point suppose there are two people ar4e fighting and if they have guns in a fit of rage they may even shoot each other ,but if they dont have gyn they may break each others bones but atleast wont kill each other and hence it would make sure there is less voilence in the country

Personally, I would want every person to have some means to protect one's self. Guns score pretty high on that list because bare fists, boots or baseball bats are melee (unless you threw your boots, which is kinda pointless) while projectile weapons like arrows, shuriken and grenades can be hard to use. Guns, however, are comparatively easy to use. You just point and click, err, fire.

However, this ease is also what worries me. After all, even if we had laws permitting only reasonable, tax-paying citizen with no criminal records to own a gun, we can never be sure what there people can do under drunken rage. Another thing is that we can't expect them to keep their guns at home all the time. Some of them may think, "I might get ambushed in the parking lot or mugged at an alley. I need a gun with me at all times." Now suppose this guy (or gal) enters a bar and downs a drink or eight. The merest of all assaults, such as shoulders bumping, could very well trigger a massacre.

Also, it'd be a whole lot easier for criminal elements to acquire guns. They'd just have a front guy getting their stuff for them while they strut 'round, burgling houses and, possibly, acquiring more firearms.

It is of my opinion, then, that people, which is to say, law-abiding citizens, should find other alternative means to protect themselves. Guns are quite easy to use but they're also easy to misuse. I was thinking of tranquilizer darts but that could also be used for criminal activities. So in the end, my vote goes to the classic melee weapons. Mmmm... knives, arnis sticks, quarterstaves.

Besides, isn't it much more fun to bludgeon a burglar when you can feel the hits really hitting?

Also something i forgot to mention.

What if someone i knew starting annoying the hell out of me so i decide to shoot and kill him? With this law in place couldn't i just "claim" to have used it in self defence when in fact it was down to cold blood?

(First, it's "gun ownership". "Ownage" is not a word.)

I would tell her to bring her pepper spray and baseball bat to a gun fight. Tell her if her rules are good enough for everyone else, they should be good enough for her. People of her ilk, though, never follow the same rules they've created for everyone else. Just look at your state Rep. Feinstein. All her bodyguards carry full auto firearms. Of course the regular person (peasant) can't afford personal bodyguards, and if you're in places like NYC where in-kind self defense is banned, you're a sitting duck for any criminal to do with as he pleases. Every animal has the ability to defend themselves against attack from other animals, but people have somehow devolved into thinking they're above all that. That's just the sort of thinking that makes for good slaves that don't question the illegal IRS or the illegal war on drugs, terror, or any other "war" our masters have declared in order to save just one child. Yeah, I think you should be able to demonstrate safe handling of a firearm before being able to carry it concealed in public, but the second amendment doesn't impart that restriction. The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means any arms, according to the intent, well documented, of the framers of the constitution, that are similar to what the army carries in their defense of our nation. That includes muffled or big bore (or both) firearms like the .50 BMG that's been recently outlawed in the state of CA. When firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them, leaving the law abiding defenseless sheep.

This post has been edited by Watermonkey: Apr 12 2007, 02:59 AM

I agree with that, If you want to legally have a gun in california, you must have it registered so if a murder ever comes up and matches you guns, they can match it but to get that liscense you need to take a shooting class and get background checked etc... which i think is fine.



If i am understanding you correctly, you understand my topic to allow people who are walking around in the streets to cary guns for saftey in the streets, this is not what i ment, i ment to have a gun, that is locked up in a safe in a house and to be used only to protect that house not to be carried around the streets in case something might happen there, there are things like pepper spray for that, and besides, you are in public chances are the criminal would be too scared to attack at all.

@richierich1m

Like i said earlyer, i don't think they should be allwed to walk around with them on the streets, and even if people are allowed to hold guns in their own home to protect their home, it still wont stop wanna-b-gangsters from buying the guns illegally and using them.

@salamangkero

if they take their gun out in public and shoot someone with it because they get jumped then i think the people doing the jumping should go free and the person who shot them should be put in jail for taking it out in public, because the whole concern about this is for protecting your home and your family in the saftey of you own home, but out in public is a whole nother story. theres pepper spray and you are in public.

@farren again

well then that person is an idiot and shouldn't have been given the gun. There would of course be investigation which would then show that there was no forced entry, and no means of the dead person to attack the person with the gun then obviously it would prove that the person shot him in cold blood and not for protection.

@ watermonkey

i don't need you to tell me how to talk, thanks