Why I don't own a gun

[Ryan Scott]

The legal intended use of a gun in defense is never to 'kill', but to stop the assault. We are taught to stop the threat, not to kill.

Then get a taser. A gun is an instrument of death. There are times when it may be appropriate and times when it might not be, but that doesn't change the purpose of the gun.

I think guns are important. I wish more people used them to hunt and that more of our meat came at the end of a gun.

I don't own a gun and would never own one because I don't trust myself not to kill someone with it in a tense situation. If the extremely rare situation happened where someone I love was threatened and I had access to a gun - I'm not sure I'd be able to refrain from shooting them, an act I would regret for the rest of my life (even if it made sense at the time).

So I keep the temptation out of my reach - much the same way as I try to keep ice cream out of my house.

[Michael Flowers]

No doubt the shootings stat would increase, but I don't know about the death by automobile. I think those deaths all get lumped into the "accidental" category most of the time. It would be horrifying to actually see the statistics of deaths by shooting if all deaths were included (war, homicide, etc.).

[Diane Likens]

Daddy used to say, "Rifles are for killing meat. Handguns are for killing men. Ain't no reason for me to have a handgun."

Daddy was a very wise man.

[Billy Cox]

A gun is employed (shown, or drawn, or pointed) many more times than it is fired. Just the presence of the weapon frequently prevents a crime. And if it is fired, unlike what we see on TV and in film, most people that get shot, do not die. The legal intended use of a gun in defense is never to 'kill', but to stop the assault. We are taught to stop the threat, not to kill. If the death of the assailant occurs, it is a non-intended consequence.

For those of us that view self defense and the defense of innocents as a moral and noble endeavor, the ownership and use of a gun has every much as positive an 'intended purpose' as a stove, chainsaw, or automobile.

This point of view doesn't make sense to me. If I point a gun at a person, I accept (knowingly or not) the very real possibility that I am going to kill that person. Only a fool would shoot someone and then be surprised if the person dies.

Are there non-lethal means of 'stopping an assault'? If so, then why is most of the interest in weapons centered on lethal force?

Again, I'm fine with you owning a gun or 50 guns if you so desire. If you choose to empty a clip into a home intruder or just shoot to immobilize...either way you bear the intended and unintended consequences, that's your prerogative too. It's your risk to take, I'm just observing that your argument doesn't make much sense.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm just observing that your argument doesn't make much sense.

That would only be a problem though if the decision to buy a gun is purely made on rational grounds. In my view, that is yet to be proved.

[David Parker]

This point of view doesn't make sense to me. If I point a gun at a person, I accept (knowingly or not) the very real possibility that I am going to kill that person. Only a fool would shoot someone and then be surprised if the person dies.

Are there non-lethal means of 'stopping an assault'? If so, then why is most of the interest in weapons centered on lethal force?

Again, I'm fine with you owning a gun or 50 guns if you so desire. If you choose to empty a clip into a home intruder or just shoot to immobilize...either way you bear the intended and unintended consequences, that's your prerogative too. It's your risk to take, I'm just observing that your argument doesn't make much sense.

It might not make much sense to you, but intent makes much difference in law. I didn't say I would be 'surprised' if a criminal dies after getting shot, I said it would be an 'unintended consequence'. A regretful but acceptable consequence. And that consequence isn't on me - it is on the assailant. A defender's hands are clean.

Tasers and pepper spray and such have their place, but for many situations, certainly including overpowering force on the part of the assailant, or multiple assailants, or in situations where you can't physically flee, I want the best tool available.

But as I've said before...everybody should be able to decide for themselves. (and I assure you Hans, I am completely rational)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

(and I assure you Hans, I am completely rational)

I wonder how much weight declaring oneself as "completely rational" carries?

I watched a TV series one time about a group of international young people touring the USA. They went to some famous places and had adventures - eating local foods, visiting local tourist attractions, etc. It was kind of interesting, especially when they went to places I knew about.

On one episode they were at a dude ranch about 100 miles west of where I live. I've never been on a dude ranch, but this one, predictably, played up the "cowboy" aspect of Texas. At one point they took the young people out to a gun range and let them shoot various firearms. They had a wonderful time - but it was almost comical to hear their comments. All their lives some of them (the Europeans in particular) had been told how "bad" guns are. It was like they were being offered forbidden fruit and were fascinated and frightened at the same time.

I'm telling that simply to say that there are issues in play on this topic that are more cultural than logical. I think it colors the discussion to the point that it's nearly impossible for people to hear one another.

[Craig Laughlin]

I'm telling that simply to say that there are issues in play on this topic that are more cultural than logical. I think it colors the discussion to the point that it's nearly impossible for people to hear one another.

True words.

Having moved back and forth between an urban, most would call inner city, environment to a rural one the legitimate difference are extremely real. Having once been stalked by a mountain lion and having friends who worked in the woods alone I can even understand purchasing a high powered hand gun for necessarily protection against wild animals. (This is to say that pointing it at a human is not the only reason to have a hand gun) To me it is justification to own such a gun. If I were to tell this story to an inner city mother whose children were shot to death by handguns, well she does not hear that at all. Both have legitimate ways of looking at the world that are colored by real experiences.

Personally I get frustrated with the extremes on both sides and Scott you rightly point out the biggest issue is the ability to really listen to each other. I would add that there is in my opinion great virtue in truly listening and striving to understand those who have a different perspective than myself. In fact sometime when I shut up and really listen I learn a thing or two. Doesn't even mean I change my opinion but I gain understanding about where someone is coming from and that usually softens my heart even if it doesn't change my mind.

[Hans Deventer]

(and I assure you Hans, I am completely rational)

David, I really don't want to offend you in any way, I like you way too much, but I do not believe any human being, including myself, is completely rational.

[Jim Chabot]

It might not make much sense to you, but intent makes much difference in law. I didn't say I would be 'surprised' if a criminal dies after getting shot, I said it would be an 'unintended consequence'. A regretful but acceptable consequence. And that consequence isn't on me - it is on the assailant. A defender's hands are clean.

Tasers and pepper spray and such have their place, but for many situations, certainly including overpowering force on the part of the assailant, or multiple assailants, or in situations where you can't physically flee, I want the best tool available.

But as I've said before...everybody should be able to decide for themselves. (and I assure you Hans, I am completely rational)

Completely rational might be a stretch, but I sure wouldn't worry about you shooting me, either on purpose or accidental. Now should you shoot someone intending on doing me, or a loved one or anyone for that matter, great harm. I would shake your hand and express my heartfelt gratitude.

[Jim Chabot]

Again, I'm fine with you owning a gun or 50 guns if you so desire. If you choose to empty a clip into a home intruder or just shoot to immobilize...either way you bear the intended and unintended consequences, that's your prerogative too. It's your risk to take.

Our (now retired) police chief has said on numerous occasions that the only safe way to stop someone intent on killing you is to fire four shots into the torso. Shooting to immobilize only works in the movies.

[Sarah Smith]

I would hope we would all have enough common sense to agree that what is appropriate and even responsible in Passaic is going to be different from what is responsible and appropriate in the boonies outside of Billings.

I would never advocate an inner city mom getting a gun for her home, and would hope she would never support laws that would prevent me from having one.

[Lucas Finch]

True words.

Having moved back and forth between an urban, most would call inner city, environment to a rural one the legitimate difference are extremely real. Having once been stalked by a mountain lion and having friends who worked in the woods alone I can even understand purchasing a high powered hand gun for necessarily protection against wild animals. (This is to say that pointing it at a human is not the only reason to have a hand gun) To me it is justification to own such a gun. If I were to tell this story to an inner city mother whose children were shot to death by handguns, well she does not hear that at all. Both have legitimate ways of looking at the world that are colored by real experiences.

Personally I get frustrated with the extremes on both sides and Scott you rightly point out the biggest issue is the ability to really listen to each other. I would add that there is in my opinion great virtue in truly listening and striving to understand those who have a different perspective than myself. In fact sometime when I shut up and really listen I learn a thing or two. Doesn't even mean I change my opinion but I gain understanding about where someone is coming from and that usually softens my heart even if it doesn't change my mind.

Mountain lions, black bears (and even grizzlies), coyotes, and wolves all roam the mountains surrounding my valley (and even come into the valley from time to time). I have never carried a gun with me when I have gone out hiking, but many people do, and I can't blame them. And handguns are really much more practical for protection in these settings than rifles.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Then get a taser.

They aren't always very effective. You also only get one shot before you have to reload, and depending on the clothing of the assailant you may not be able to deploy it.

much the same way as I try to keep ice cream out of my house.

You sad, sad man.

[Daniel Hamlin]

Our (now retired) police chief has said on numerous occasions that the only safe way to stop someone intent on killing you is to fire four shots into the torso. Shooting to immobilize only works in the movies.

It might not take 4, it might take 17 or more.

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/tr...er-soulis-inci

The perpetrator had no drugs and only a small amount of alcohol in his system.

[Ryan Scott]

It might not make much sense to you, but intent makes much difference in law. I didn't say I would be 'surprised' if a criminal dies after getting shot, I said it would be an 'unintended consequence'. A regretful but acceptable consequence. And that consequence isn't on me - it is on the assailant. A defender's hands are clean.

I can be accepting of someone's desire to own a gun for personal defense against another human being - even though I disagree with it and don't like it - but I could never support this rationale. It's not even a logical argument.

Law has no place in a discussion of morality - a person killed with a gun is dead and the person who shot the gun killed them. It is a direct consequences and your denial of such is incredibly troubling, especially from someone who carries a gun all the time.

Believe it or not, but I think these laws going around requiring ultrasounds before an abortion are actually a good idea (the implementation leaves something to be desired, but still) - one of the main reasons I think so is because while I don't think abortion is a good choice, I do recognize that there are extreme and regrettable circumstances that occasionally lead us to take life (there are sound arguments for war, self-defense, abortion, etc - even if we disagree with the conclusions).

However, in those situations, I think it's important for people to realize that it is life they're taking. I don't like that we try to desensitize soldiers for this same reason. Sure, it may be more traumatic if you realize the scope of what you've done and the real, irreparable consequence of your actions, but these actions are real and serious - it should be traumatic. We're taking on something that only God can do, holding the power of life and death.

As I've said over and over, I recognize there may be times when taking a life becomes regrettably necessary - I just want to make sure everyone who does so, does so with a proper understanding of what they're doing.

I don't have guns around because I don't think I could ever be in a position to have that understanding during a time when I'm likely to use the gun.

Then again, I doubt I could shoot a dying squirrel without crying - so I'm going to have to toughen up a bit if we ever realize this post-apocalyptic future everyone keeps talking about.

[Craig Laughlin]

Mountain lions, black bears (and even grizzlies), coyotes, and wolves all roam the mountains surrounding my valley (and even come into the valley from time to time). I have never carried a gun with me when I have gone out hiking, but many people do, and I can't blame them. And handguns are really much more practical for protection in these settings than rifles.

I think for most people you are right about a rifle.

I had a good friend who was a forester. His job was to evaluate the worth of stands of timber. He spent a great deal of time out in the deep woods alone. He had had several encounters with bears and cubs over the years. He did not want to carry a rifle as he was constantly hiking around and taking notes. He had a very large caliber handgun (I think a .45 mag) and was an extremely good shot. He also was a very good hunter for all kinds of animals including bear.

The time I was stalked by a mountain lion the only thing I had on me was a single shot 22. It would be extremely rare for a mountain lion to attack me. Probably once he figured out that I wasn't a normal part of his diet he just moved on, but it is a little unnerving when you are back in the wood to see mountain lion tracks following your own tracks. I decided my little Grouse hunting trip was over.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Personally I get frustrated with the extremes on both sides and Scott you rightly point out the biggest issue is the ability to really listen to each other. I would add that there is in my opinion great virtue in truly listening and striving to understand those who have a different perspective than myself. In fact sometime when I shut up and really listen I learn a thing or two. Doesn't even mean I change my opinion but I gain understanding about where someone is coming from and that usually softens my heart even if it doesn't change my mind.

"How good and pleasant it is when the brethern dwell together in unity" (or at least listen to what one another say).

Just to be fair, from what I've seen the pro-gun types are more "live and let live" than are the anti-gun types who are more "my way or the highway" on the issue.

[Craig Laughlin]

I think most on the left (especially those influenced by inner city experiences) would say that carrying a gun is itself an aggressive posture toward them so it doesn't feel like live and let live to them. I would also add that when I think of the far right on this issue I certainly don't think of folks like David Parker. I think of folks like the skin heads in northern Idaho who were stockpiling guns and larger weapons. I think of the guy that told me there should be zero restrictions and that every citizen should be able to own fully automatic assault weapons and fully functioning cannons, grenades and launchers as well as fully functioning tanks. - These guys scare me and I made my way out of town quickly. I was living in Idaho when some of that crazy stuff was going on. (I guess I too am colored by my experiences)

David Parker I would love to have attend my church or live as my neighbor. I am in far more danger from the teenager down the street with a fast car and no judgement than I am from David carrying a gun.

[John Reilly]

In NH the state house of reps. just made it legal to carry a concealed gun. One of the reps was in the news tonight because his concealed hand gun fell from his underarm holster on to the floor making a loud noise. It was referred to as "A regrettable event."

[David Parker]

I can be accepting of someone's desire to own a gun for personal defense against another human being - even though I disagree with it and don't like it - but I could never support this rationale. It's not even a logical argument.

Law has no place in a discussion of morality - a person killed with a gun is dead and the person who shot the gun killed them. It is a direct consequences and your denial of such is incredibly troubling, especially from someone who carries a gun all the time.

This may be a great opportunity to understand the rationale a bit better. I am not denying the 'direct consequence' of a shooting death. FOR ME, the moral onus of that consequence is on the one that chose to initiate violent deadly force on me or an innocent under my protection. If a violent attacker uses deadly force (the only scenario that justifies an armed response) against me or mine, THEY (not me) are risking their safety because I choose not to sacrifice my life or the lives of my family to the violent capricious intentions of such a person.

I am not trying to kill them, only to stop their assault. I fully recognize that the attacker may die, but not due to my murderous intent. It would be due to their actions and my justified defense against those actions. Believe me, this is a subject that gets lots of examination from those that choose to be legally armed.

And to attempt some clarity regarding deadly force, let me state it another way. Defensive force stops the moment there is no more threat. Often all that is required is an assertive stance and a command. Maybe the weapon is drawn. Maybe it must be fired. But the defense stops when the threat ends. We are trained to aim center mass and fire until the threat ends. Whether that is one round or the entire magazine depends on the bad guy.

[Wilson Deaton]

Just to be fair, from what I've seen the pro-gun types are more "live and let live" than are the anti-gun types who are more "my way or the highway" on the issue.

Not a charge I'd like to admit to, but in this instance your observation is almost a logical necessity: Guys like me don't want anyone to have a gun. Thus, if you have one, that ruins it for me. On the other hand, likes like David who do want to have a gun, really have no reason to also desire that I have one. Thus, my not having one, doesn't ruin it for David.

So, just to be fair, you're kind of right his time.

Wilson

[Steven Martinez]

I think most on the left (especially those influenced by inner city experiences) would say that carrying a gun is itself an aggressive posture toward them so it doesn't feel like live and let live to them. I would also add that when I think of the far right on this issue I certainly don't think of folks like David Parker. I think of folks like the skin heads in northern Idaho who were stockpiling guns and larger weapons. I think of the guy that told me there should be zero restrictions and that every citizen should be able to own fully automatic assault weapons and fully functioning cannons, grenades and launchers as well as fully functioning tanks. - These guys scare me and I made my way out of town quickly. I was living in Idaho when some of that crazy stuff was going on. (I guess I too am colored by my experiences)

David Parker I would love to have attend my church or live as my neighbor. I am in far more danger from the teenager down the street with a fast car and no judgement than I am from David carrying a gun.

In all fairness, David Parker's beard strikes more fear into anyone than any gun. In fact the only thing more deadly than his beard is the possibility of a beard gun. So I think it is only reasonable to remove David's ideas from this thread because his gun opinions are not based upon actual gun experiences but the majestic power of the beard. <----- actual picture of David Parker last Christmas.

[Lucas Finch]

In all fairness, David Parker's beard strikes more fear into anyone than any gun. In fact the only thing more deadly than his beard is the possibility of a beard gun. So I think it is only reasonable to remove David's ideas from this thread because his gun opinions are not based upon actual gun experiences but the majestic power of the beard. <----- actual picture of David Parker last Christmas.

I've heard that David Parker actually carries concealed . . . in his beard.

[Dale Cozby]

Oh for the grace of God and the prayers of the faithful on my behalf.
I rode in the back of pickup trucks and even on the hoods for short distances, rode bikes without a helmet over 25,000 miles at least, was raised around guns, and various firearms, switchblades, brass knuckles,power tools, chain saws and even bamboo spears from our yard my brother and I fashioned to make war with each other, I climbed down into storm water drains and creeks, ran across major roads, road bikes without my hands, I was a gun "owner" at 10 years old, played in both pools and lakes without waterwings or constant adult supervision, and I even ran with sissors(when mom wasn't looking) , as a teen I did even more adrenal inducing things. It is a wonder I or my brother survived....Somehow I got enough training and wisdom from my dad to not kill myself or someone else and save for the grace of God and the prayers of those who asked Him for my protection and care.

To each his own, but I will do my best to prepare my kids to live in the world and not be of the world. Including firearm protocol, and pool safety.

[Steven Martinez]

I've heard that David Parker actually carries concealed . . . in his beard.

Interesting things that have been discovered in David Parker's beard:
* The Ark of the Covenant
* The lost colony of Roanoke
* 5 Watergate Tapes
* The missing aliens from Roswell
* 57 Missing left socks from dryers around the world
* A jar of peanut butter
* Jimmy Carter's second term

[Ryan Scott]

This may be a great opportunity to understand the rationale a bit better. I am not denying the 'direct consequence' of a shooting death. FOR ME, the moral onus of that consequence is on the one that chose to initiate violent deadly force on me or an innocent under my protection. If a violent attacker uses deadly force (the only scenario that justifies an armed response) against me or mine, THEY (not me) are risking their safety because I choose not to sacrifice my life or the lives of my family to the violent capricious intentions of such a person.

I am not trying to kill them, only to stop their assault. I fully recognize that the attacker may die, but not due to my murderous intent. It would be due to their actions and my justified defense against those actions. Believe me, this is a subject that gets lots of examination from those that choose to be legally armed.

And to attempt some clarity regarding deadly force, let me state it another way. Defensive force stops the moment there is no more threat. Often all that is required is an assertive stance and a command. Maybe the weapon is drawn. Maybe it must be fired. But the defense stops when the threat ends. We are trained to aim center mass and fire until the threat ends. Whether that is one round or the entire magazine depends on the bad guy.

This is exactly why I'm against people walking around with guns. You're blaming someone else for something you do. That's scary and irresponsible. It's exactly why I would never have a gun - because its a rationale that makes sense in the moment, but doesn't hold up to logical examination.

[Sarah Smith]

I'm sure my geographical location makes my ideas skewed.

Afterall, I DO have to deal with bears trying to get in the living room window. I DO have to make sure the curtains hide the fridge to discourage their entry. I DO have to deal with mountain lions on the front sidewalk.

And I DO live in an area rife with meth heads.

I would never want to hurt another human being, but would not hesitate to protect myself or my family from someone bent on rape or murder. And no, I would NOT be blaming my actions on another person. Part of being a follower of Christ is protecting the innocents.

But just to inject some reality and levity: a few years ago a meth head got into the home of some elderly, poor health neighbors of ours and commenced to beat them up. The good elderly lady of the house (in her 80's?) grabbed a broom handle, beat the living snot out of the meth head, and chased her down the street.

Maybe we should ban brooms in the hands of old ladies?

[Jim Chabot]

This is exactly why I'm against people walking around with guns. You're blaming someone else for something you do. That's scary and irresponsible. It's exactly why I would never have a gun - because its a rationale that makes sense in the moment, but doesn't hold up to logical examination.

You are trying to blame Dave for something that someone else did.

[Hans Deventer]

You are trying to blame Dave for something that someone else did.

Ah! When someone enters my home, he makes me shoot him. Yeah, that makes sense.

[Jim Chabot]

I've heard that David Parker actually carries concealed . . . in his beard.

I'm not so sure, I think that we would have seen it somehow. I'll tell you one thing. It was great around Christmas having Dave Parker over at our house each night via his "moonlighting" job when the market was slow.

[Jim Chabot]

Ah! When someone enters my home, he makes me shoot him. Yeah, that makes sense.

When he enters your home and points a gun at your daughter or wife or even yourself? Yes indeed, that fellow made you shoot him, no question in my mind.

Now if you go outside and find this guy and point a gun at him and he shoots you. Would you agree that you caused this?

[Jim Chabot]

Interesting things that have been discovered in David Parker's beard:
* The Ark of the Covenant
* The lost colony of Roanoke
* 5 Watergate Tapes
* The missing aliens from Roswell
* 57 Missing left socks from dryers around the world
* A jar of peanut butter
* Jimmy Carter's second term

Ummm, Jimmy Carter's second term must have fell out, cause it's out on public display right now.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Jim Chabot]

Maybe we should ban brooms in the hands of old ladies?

That one has been covered long, long time ago.

I've been thinking this for days now.

[Hans Deventer]

When he enters your home and points a gun at your daughter or wife or even yourself? Yes indeed, that fellow made you shoot him, no question in my mind.

Now if you go outside and find this guy and point a gun at him and he shoots you. Would you agree that you caused this?

Jim, nobody is causing anything to such an extent that one does not have a choice. You are not a robot, you are a moral person who makes choices.

[Dwayne Petry]

Jim, nobody is causing anything to such an extent that one does not have a choice. You are not a robot, you are a moral person who makes choices.

I'm with Jim.

If the man never enters your home and points a gun at you or your family, no choice has to be made.

When he enters your home and points a gun at you or your family, he forces you to make a choice! Jim and I would make the choice to defend our family. A choice, he brought upon himself by entering and attempting to harm a family.

[Glenn Messer]

Jim, nobody is causing anything to such an extent that one does not have a choice. You are not a robot, you are a moral person who makes choices.

Hans, I agree with you entirely. And in the situation that Jim described, I would choose to shoot him. If he was just standing in my house, apparently unarmed, and I had a gun in my hand, I like to think that I would first give him a chance to explain why he was standing in my house; we would do that while we waited the arrival of the police.

The chances that any of us will ever find ourselves in such a situation is rather remote and possibly a much more remote possibility for you than for one of us. I don't personally know anyone who wants to shoot an intruder, but I know a number of people who would shoot an intruder.

Interestingly enough, I sat in a hospital waiting room this morning with a lady who was carrying double armament. Normally she was a concealed carrier, but today she had her jacket removed so as not to be concealed. (Concealed carry there was prohibited.) Of course, she was self-identified as a police officer. I suspect that if an armed assault had taken place in that waiting room, she would have responded with deadly force.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, nobody is causing anything to such an extent that one does not have a choice. You are not a robot, you are a moral person who makes choices.

Correct, however the choice is already made, thus the actionable party is already identified. It really takes very little thought to come to the best conclusion.

It is abundantly clear that to protect those who are in danger is in fact loving them, so they must be protected. Of course it has already been said that we must not withhold love from the attacker as well. But the question as to how the attacker is to be loved isn't nearly as simple as folks would have us believe. Quite simply, I know how to love the innocent, I can't be sure how best to love the attacker and yet a decision must be made. So it is simple, I have decided to do good and to not get overly worried about how my doing good just might not be the very best way. The decision is already made, I seek to love and I do so to the best of my ability, I would have to be convinced of yet a better way in order to act differently.

And yes I would fret and worry about the attacker. My heart would be saddened, I would wonder and worry about just what had brought him to the place of evil intent. I would not worry one bit about my efforts to stop his evil advance, he left me with no choice. So in effect he has caused this action and retains full responsibility. As they say, probably shouldn't have done that.

[Bob Hunter]

I just want to say how much I enjoy shooting guns. Yesterday, I went off-roading with two pastor friends and the Asst. D.S. from my District. We all brought guns and shreaded some paper in the Superstition mountains. It was pretty fun.

That said, I'm really not interested in a concealed weapon permit. Just doesn't seem like my thing and there are a lot of risks involved.

[Hans Deventer]

I'm with Jim.

If the man never enters your home and points a gun at you or your family, no choice has to be made.

When he enters your home and points a gun at you or your family, he forces you to make a choice! Jim and I would make the choice to defend our family. A choice, if he brought upon himself by entering and attempting to harm a family.

Dwayne, I argued about choice versus cause. You agree with me, I understand. Indeed we are forced to make a CHOICE. That is my very point.