Summations Only

First of all, let me say that I think the US is a lost cause when it comes to gun control. US culture is as permeated with guns as most Western cultures are permeated with alcohol. Prohibition is not going to work.It's not a question of putting out the fire; it's a question of saving as many of the victims as possble. Guns can be useful. They are occasionally necessary for putting down injured animals, etc. and they are often used for recreational purposes such as hunting and target shooting.But it seems that many/most people in the US have guns for "protection". I've said it before and I'll say it again: A gun is not a defensive weapon. It will not protect you. The best you can do with a gun is shoot first (sneak attack) or hope the other guy misses. Guns used for "protection" are as likely or more likely to hurt the owner and/or his loved ones. I think Jefferson intended that "a well-regulated militia" should protect the people from foreign tyranny, not that every yahoo should have a gun to overthrow his government.

Suppose I have a convenience store on a busy street and an armed robber comes in. I pull my gun and chase him way, blazing away at him like Clint Eastwood.Discharging a firearm in the city is a danger to innocent bystanders, which is already illegal (or should be). I think the question should be: At what point does my "right to self defense" supercede somebody else's right to safety?

The situation is the same. You are (should be) responsible for your own bullets. If you miss the perpetrator and your bullet goes out the door and hits a kid passing by on a bicycle, you are (should be) considered guilty of mansaughter.Maybe you survive if you shoot back, maybe you don't. If you don't shoot back, at least you don't go to jail. As I keep harping, a gun is not a defensive weapon; it's an offensive weapon. People need to understand the offensive action of shooting an innocent passerby. "Self defense" isn't (shouldn't be) an excuse for endangering somebody else. I would ask, rather: Is it effective? Is a shopkeeper safer hiding behind the counter or playing Gunfight at the OK Corral? Personally, don't think deadly action is ever warranted. I think it's understandable if you're trying to protect your children - but it probably isn't the most effective means of protecting them either. As I've already mentioned in this thread, if I was an armed criminal, confronting an armed populace would make me more likely to shoot first. Making it illegal for my victims to shoot at me would make me feel a little safer, which would make them safer.

Ultimately, I'm saying that you shouldn't be armed at all. Unprovoked killing sprees are going to happen. You're not likely to improve the situation by joining in the mayhem. If you use a karate kick on somebody, that is offensive. If you trip him, that would be more defensive. If a gun could be used defensively, the same would apply, but it can't.Also, accidentally killing somebody with a karate kick is fundamentally different from intentionally killing him with a gun - and your karate kick is less likely to effect the kid on the bicycle. You only answered half of the question. Is it safer? Do you actually have a chance to get to your gun and shoot him before he shoots you? Are you really helping the other victims by becoming another victim yourself? And what are the chances that you'll shoot one of the customers instead of the shooter? There again, the intention of slashing at him is not necessarily to kill him but to stop him or disable him. I'm not necessarily against people defending themselves, only using deadly force to do it. I have little problem with killing somebody by accident while defending yourself.But guns are far more likely to be deadly and, again, more likely to produce collateral damage. I'm more worried about a frightened criminal than a bold one. After all, he's armed in the first place to defend himself and he knows he has to shoot first to do it. If the population was unarmed, why would the criminals need to be?(By the way, some of my ancestors left the old country because they were wanted for armed robbery. Their weapon? A block of wood. I expect there were few fatalities.)

I'm not intolerant of victim action. I'm intolerant of stupid action.

It's the people who have guns. Some of them shouldn't.

If enough criminals get killed by law abiding citizens protecting themselves, the criminals who don't get killed will get bigger and better weapons and they will be more inclined to use them.

How the world "should be" is pretty much what laws are for. And nobody's telling you not to think about guns.

You can control your own bullets; you are responsible for your own bullets. You can't control the criminal's bullets. But it isn't black-and-white. There's a whole spectrum of gray in between "law-abiding' and "criminal".

Felons aren't the only problem. The guy who has never committed a felony until he shoots his wife in a jealous rage is also a problem.The real root problem is that Americans tend to think they can "protect themselves" with guns. I'd be happy to discuss the death penalty in a topic about the death penalty. Feel free to start one.

The point is that preventing felons from having guns doen't prevent non-felons from shooting their wives. To prevent gun deaths, you have to keep guns out of the hands of (potential) murderers, not just (people who are already) felons. We do that with cars, don't we? Indeed it is. It can be used to shoot first (a sneak attack like Pearl Harbor or 9/11) but it doesn't make you bullet-proof.

Why not Google the thing you want to know - "shootings in the home" in the past 24 hours? So are guns.

I don't think anybody is "blaming the gun" any more than they're blaming a hole in the ground that somebody falls into. They're blaming the idiot who dug the hole and left it uncovered. They're blaming the idiots who own guns. Logic doesn't trump evidence.

quote:

---

A 9-year-old girl accidentally killed an Arizona shooting instructor as he was showing her how to use an automatic Uzi, authorities said.

---

I know I'm a terrible person but it's hard to drum up much sympathy for that "instructor".

You have it backwards. In a desperate situation we think of all kinds of silly solutions. It's only when we're calm and rational that we are likely to come up with sensible policies.