Mandatory Gun Ownership

[Tanasi]

Most of you know my stand on firearms, that being said I think this is a stupid bill. If someone doesn't want to own a firearm then they shouldn't be made to do so, in the same vein if someone doesn't want to buy health insurance then they shouldn't have to. Being aware of risks and willing to accept them all is also part those decisions.
This coming weekend I'm going to help teach two different TN HCP classes with a combined 70+ students, I'm positive there will be at least 2 if not more that shouldn't own a firearm but they've done nothing wrong to prevent it so they'll have one. I've told more that one student they should reconsider buying a gun and maybe instead investing in a good stick and a dog.

[Panacea]

There actually is precedence for mandatory gun ownership.

In the colonial period, and for years after the Revolution, all men between the ages of 16 and 60 had to own a long gun (musket or rifle), keep it in good working order, and drill regularly with the local militia. As our country became more settled, the French, Brits, and Native Americans forced out or subdued, these practices fell out of favor.

The one thing I'd object to is "Why should gun owners pay for police protection for those who chose not to protect themselves?"

Don't police protect gun owners as well as those without guns?

There's a logical fallacy here: the assumption is that the only way police protect us is by showing up to confront bad guys with a gun. In fact, police protect is in a myriad of other ways, many of which have been mentioned here. They also investigate many crimes after the fact, allowing for the arrest and trial of the perpetrators. Owning a gun doesn't help you much if you're not home when your place is burglarized.

Why do they have guns then? If I carry a gun around with me, I am protecting myself. I'd have the training necessary to do whatever I need to do, God forbid it becomes necessary.

You're only protecting yourself when you're directly confronted. As mentioned, there are many other kinds of crimes that a gun is useless to protect you from.

Also, you do have the training . . . from your time in the service. Most Americans lack that training, which is a real problem.

Not that I object to people using guns to protect themselves. I've used a gun to protect myself in the past (didn't have to fire it, thank God, just waved it around). Sometimes a gun is a useful tool for that. But I think folks like this legislator and the NRA crowd vastly over estimate the value of guns in preventing crime.

[Zod]

There's a logical fallacy here: the assumption is that the only way police protect us is by showing up to confront bad guys with a gun. In fact, police protect is in a myriad of other ways, many of which have been mentioned here. They also investigate many crimes after the fact, allowing for the arrest and trial of the perpetrators. Owning a gun doesn't help you much if you're not home when your place is burglarized.

Plus there's a load of minor crimes out there - like littering, being on a train without a ticket, driving with a broken brakelight, and shooting the person involved just seems like over kill.

Greenday : your plan only works if you're the fastest on the draw, and are never taken by surprise. Even towns in the Wild West had sheriffs.

It's impossible to prove how many potential muggings haven't happend because of the presence of a police force. In a similar vein, an awful lot of American tax money goes to the US military : but no one's tried to invade the US in about 70 years : has this just been wasted money?

[siead_lietrathua]

It's impossible to prove how many potential muggings haven't happend because of the presence of a police force. In a similar vein, an awful lot of American tax money goes to the US military : but no one's tried to invade the US in about 70 years : has this just been wasted money?

this gave me a giggle. the only land-based options to invade the US are Canada (and we don't want to, not because of military but because it's a pointless thing) and mexico, which seems to think of the states as a place of refuge and so wouldnt do a war-invasion. anyone else requires crossing water bodies.
i'm taking invasion, not attacking, btw.

on topic: i think it's a stupid friggan law. so many people should NOT have guns in their homes. there are very good reasons as to why we don't have any in ours, and if some suit at my door told me i had to, i would give them the middle finger and slam the door.
if i get a robber? that's what the damn insurance is for.

[lordlundar]

this gave me a giggle. the only land-based options to invade the US are Canada (and we don't want to, not because of military but because it's a pointless thing)

And I got a chuckle out of this largely because I read it as "we won't invade because you're not worth the effort."

[Ginger Tea]

And I got a chuckle out of this largely because I read it as "we won't invade because you're not worth the effort."

I'm ill informed as to the end of the war of Independance, or the war in general (hell I didn't know what the song "Boston tea party" refered to when they showed it again on TOTP2 or a re run of the old grey whistle test), but what with the war with the french at the same time and the distance involved in sending more troops, part of me thinks we gave it up as a lost cause, the Titanic would have taken some time getting there, so who knows how much longer (without looking it up) a sail boat would have taken.

Back on topic, for those in the UK who do have a gun licence, they have to keep it in a locked cabinate partly dismantled, even if its taking the magazine out and storing it somewhere else (ditto ammo) and maybe the firing pin, so they are not really what you can call "home defence" weapons.

AFAIK you can legaly sleep with a loaded pistol under your pillow in the states, Id' hate to be the one guy who sleep shoots his brain out in a one in a million accident.
So it's there when you need it, not after you have assembled it from different rooms and by then it would no doubt be too late, but you have to hope that people (currently) with fire arms and young children think about access prevention on the whole without comprimising on speedy access in self defence (castle law etc).

Forcing each and every house hold to have a gun just negated one of the hoops that stopped the CT shooter from buying his own (and stealing his mothers killing her in the process) in this instance he already had access to a fire arm, but if this shooting happened after such an act, basically it's like the government just gave him a gun and said "Here, go postal"

[s_stabeler]

the reason guns aren't exactly home defence guns in the UK ( though they have been used as such very successfully in the past) is because self-defense isn't a legal reason to own a firearm in the UK. It has to be hunting, collector, sport, or required for your job.

[Andara Bledin]

if i get a robber? that's what the damn insurance is for.

Something tells me that insurance isn't going to be much use if a home invasion turns ugly.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

if i get a robber? that's what the damn insurance is for.

Remind how much insurance helps if the robber turns violent? Perhaps he pulls a knife and stabs you. Is the insurance going to magically put the blood back in your body?

[bara]

Ginger,
Perhaps one of the largest reasons we did win our independence is because of the distance involved and the fact that Britain was also at War (or maybe just hostilities with the French, the French were still pretty bad ass then).

[s_stabeler]

Something tells me that insurance isn't going to be much use if a home invasion turns ugly.

^-.-^

I'm not sure they often do over here, actually. Typically, your average home invasion is when the homeowner is out of the house. ( I will confess that i can't be sure on this- I'm going by the fact you generally don't read news articles about people being killed by burglars over here)

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Remind how much insurance helps if the robber turns violent? Perhaps he pulls a knife and stabs you. Is the insurance going to magically put the blood back in your body?

That's assuming the home invader can find you. If she doesn't care about her stuff, then she'll probably just get out of the house - since she knows her house better than said invader, she'll probably be able to get out before the invader can find her.

I don't know about you, but where I am sitting at my computer right now I have several different exit points that I can be at and out of before the home invader can get to where I am. Assuming he knows exactly where I am in the house when he or she breaks in.

Guns are fine for people who want them. They should not be forced onto people who do not want them. Not everyone has it in them to pull that trigger.

[s_stabeler]

not to mention your average opportunistic burglar is more likely to run at the first sign of someone being present than to shoo the homeowner. Robberies turned lethal are far more common when it's a shop or other commercial building rather than individual homes. ( indeed, there IS an argument that a firearm might actually increase the chance of someone getting killed- in that the burglar might see there being no option but to open fire if faced with a firearm, whereas without, may simply have run)

[Greenday]

Guns are fine for people who want them. They should not be forced onto people who do not want them. Not everyone has it in them to pull that trigger.

I totally agree with this. Guns aren't for everybody. But they do work for some people. Just gotta make sure the right people are the only ones getting them.

[Andara Bledin]

Some of the situations proposed here are just silly. And some others are irrelevant.

In a discussion discussing whether a gun would make a difference, why would you bring up a situation where a gun wouldn't even come into play?

But for those very few situations where a gun would make a difference, it could be the difference between life or death for the resident.

^-.-^