h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

JAR, thanks for making some points i hadn't even considered. all of them very valid.

for being "only a kid" you posess a level of maturity hard to find in america.

and your spelling is just fine (i'm not so sure about mine, tho).

JAR, thanks for making some points i hadn't even considered. all of them very valid.

for being "only a kid" you posess a level of maturity hard to find in america.

and your spelling is just fine (i'm not so sure about mine, tho).

I think there's a difference between reasonable gun safety, and paranoia. I don't think I have anything to be worried about in my house from firearms. The weapons can't do anything by themselves.

I am not particularly thrilled with the idea of someone breaking and stealing my firearms. I'm not particularlly concerned about it either. I lock my doors, and if someone is going to go through the trouble of breaking in, then they are responsible for the consequences.

Admitadly, I have other advantages that most people don't have. My house is rarely unoccupied, since my wife works days and I work nights. When I'm not at work, there's a police car in my driveway, which is a big deterrent (Incidently, one of the best burglary deterrents is a car in the driveway. It's almost as effective as an alarm).

Incidently, none of my firearms are registered. One is issued by my department, and one is logged in my department because I carry it on duty. We don't have gun registration in this state.

I'm not so sure displaying an unloaded weapon is a good idea. You're introducing a level of violence to the situation. That perp doesn't know that the weapon is unloaded. There are a couple of ways that situaion can turn bad. First off, he may be armed. Then you're dead. Sceond, he may decide to stand tall, and attack you anyway. A lot of times, if you take intiative, you can win the fight. You will definatly get hurt if he takes this option. Guns can do a lot of damage even if they aren't loaded. Third, he may flee.

In my view, and I'm prejudiced, is that a burglar will flee. They're cowards. Most will run if they realize the home is occupied. All other perpatrators will probably try to attack you. As I said, I'm prejudiced, I hate burglars (It's a profesional hazard).

Guns can be fun, but I don't think anyone over the age 18 has a gun just because they're cool.

JAL, you're probably in an excellent place to discuss parental responsiblity. We can only remember what it's like to be a teenager.

I think the fundamental problem here is that I trust people to behave responsibly. Not everyone will, but I for the most part they do. I don't see the point in restricting a responsible preson's right to defend themselves.

The other big difference is that you see firearms as an accident prone tool for crime. I see a firearms as a tool for protection from crime and oppresion.

After I pposted that last message, it occured to me that we get used to our surroundings and the other patterns in our lives. When something changes, it strikes us as odd.

I carry a gun all day at work, and I carry off duty as well. Not having that weight on my ankle or my hip feels weird. When I was a detective, we wore civilian clothes with a gun in an open holster and a badge. That's still what I wear when I go to training or court.

I live in a state that I feel has a very reasonable attitude towards firearms. I regularlly meet citizens who carry, and I have never had a lick of trouble out of them. Heck, we have one old guy down in one of our drug neighborhoods, who openly carries a .38.

To me it's natural to see people with guns.

>In my view, and I'm prejudiced, is that a burglar will flee. They're cowards. Most will run if they realize the home is occupied. <

exactly the point i was attempting to make.

>Guns can be fun, but I don't think anyone over the age 18 has a gun just because they're cool<

think again. i know of at least one. of course he says they're all for self defense, but he just enjoys having them and showing them off. he has a homemade one he is particularly proud of.

>I think the fundamental problem here is that I trust people to behave responsibly. Not everyone will, but I for the most part they do. I don't see the point in restricting a responsible preson's right to defend themselves.<

that IS a fundamental problem. trust is to be earned, not given blatantly. all responsible people DO have a right to defend themselves. they can take self defense courses. they can call their insurance agents for burglary prevention tips (i did). they can carry pepper mace and keep it in their nightstands. at least if a person accidentally "shoots" their spouse/roommate with mace, there is a perfect rate of recovery.

taking self defense into your own hands is safer, and carries less liability.

also wanted to add that maybe my outlook on handguns comes from the fact that while i was born in st. louis, i have lived the past 27 years in a suburb of st. louis where gun ownership is not "part of the culture". we have always enjoyed an almost nonexistent violent crime history. the biggest crime news in our area is usually when someone in st. louis gets murdered and is dumped in one of our parks or wildlife areas. victims are dumped here because we are a low crime area, where people would tend not to look for such things. at that, i can remember of hearing such news only three or so times in twenty seven years.

we do not need guns.

i was busy creating my last post when you posted, but i'm out of time for today, time to go home.

will carry on tomorrow, tho. even tho we disagree, i am really enjoying our conversation.

thanks

DOH!! sorry about the double posting earlier, was having trouble opening pages.

I think burglars would flee, most other perps would probably attack. Then you're really liable to get hurt.

If I built a gun, I would be proud of it. I don't show my weapons off anywhere but at the house, but I enjoy talking about them every once in a while. As far as that goes, guns really don't interest me, and I don't know that much about them.

This is America, the country where you are innocent until proven guilty and all that. I think we are suposed to assume that people are responsible until proven otherwise. Generally, we don't restrict our rights unless there is a reason to do so.

>As far as that goes, guns really don't interest me, and I don't know that much about them.<

That might be a problem. The one good thing I found about military service (least in Norway, my homeworld..) was the intimate knowledge we, the soldiers, got of our guns. We learned just about everything there is to know about the particular rifle/machinegun/cannon or whatever we got assigned to. That way, we knew if something was wrong, we knew when a gun should not be used (I got two heavy machine guns removed from service in one day, due to technical errors ) That way, we also got to respect our weaponry. Noone fooled around with the guns. Ever. And we were kids. Youngest one in my platoon was 17 years old.
Again, I do not suspect that you are irresponsible in your handling of guns, but I do suspect that in America, there is a fundamental lack of understaqnding of a guns potential killingpower. I also fear that there exists a kind of glorification of guns. That owning a pistol is a symbol of strength and/or status is certain circles.

But you are of course right, Two Bit, in saying that about me viewing a gun as an accident waiting to happen, and you seeing them more as a self-defence aid. I guess that comes from me living in a place where cops don't carry guns. If they patrol the really crimeinfested areas, they have a gun locked down in the trunk. Owning a gun is an alien thought to me. If the Americas have come so far that owning a gun is a matter of personal safety, it is sad indeed, and something is terribly wrong in such a society...

>As far as that goes, guns really don't interest me, and I don't know that much about them.<

What I meant by that I don't get into ballistics and the comparisons of bullets and different firearms in any great detail.

I have .40 calibre Glocks because that's what most of the police departments around here use. At work I carry an issued Glock 22 and my own Glock 27. I like the compatibility. Somneone else has gone through the trouble of figuring out that it's a good weapon and the bullets are the best we can get.

I want an M-16 rather than a shotgun because it's what I used in the infantry, and I know the weapon. I also prefer the accuracy of a rifle, and the fact that there is no spread of pellets. I hope to get one in the next year.

I don't care to get into the particulars of firearms. I rather leave that to others while I waste time online.

There are people who don't really understand what firearms can do. It's my opinion that adults and a good many juveniles understand the power of a weapon.

I'm not sure it's your place to judge us as being sad or otherwise.

As for our society, we are a nation formed by armed citizen militias. The fact that we have the second amendment to the Constitution shows the importnace firearms had in establishing our freedom. Some of us still see the value of firearms as an ultimate check on the government as well as the criminal element in our society.

I'd rather have the freedom to choose between being unarmed or armed.

just out of curiosity....don't tell me this would never happen, just tell me what the results would be if it did.....

you are wrestling with a perp whom you have just caught in the act of breaking into a liquor store at three in the morning. the perp already has several warrants for his arrest, so he figures "what the hell" and goes for your gun. as it turns out, he ends up with YOUR gun, instead of your service revolver. he shoots your partner and escapes, commiting other armed crimes before he is recaught. WHO is responsible for the perp coming into the posession of a privately owned firearm? he wouldn't have had access to it if you had left it at home. you can only fire one gun at a time anyway. why do you carry it on patrol?

as for JAR's judgement, i'm with him. and being an american i CAN say that i feel we have come to a very sad state of affairs, indeed.

He would be responsible for it because he was the one who decided to use it.

I carry two because if someone did get my primary weapon, I would not be completely defenseless. Something like 30% of officers killed by gunfire are shot with their own weapon.

Carrying two weapons is a fairly common practice. A lot of agencies issue back up weapons.

>He would be responsible for it because he was the one who decided to use it.<

but if he had not gotten it from you, he wouldn't have had one to use.

maybe i shouldn't have used that particular situation as an example. you are right, carrying two on patrol does make sense. and i've never been against officers carrying weapons, just private citizens.

being on patrol you are expeted to carry. maybe i should have said, and i think this was brought up before, if the perp were breaking into your house, and got ahold of your weapon. i still think owners should be held responsible for the whereabouts of their pieces. if a gun is properly locked up (not laying out on a table), chances are great that it will not be taken. but if it has been left in a location that begs theft, then where does the responsibility lie?

i guess it's another one of those shady gray areas

I think it's absurd. Criminals are responsible for their own actions. If someone commits a crime by burglarizing a home, I don't see how you can hold the home owner responsible for the actions of a felon. If a person locks thieir doors, why should they need to put the firearm under yet another lock? Why are you trying to make crimnal s out of more citizens?

I have no children in my house. My wife used a pistol for five years in the Army. There's no need foor extra locks. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that I do need a weapon for protection, my bed is only 15 yards or so from the front door. I'm going to need that weapon immediatly.

I prefer to take precautions against being a victim. I prefer to take precautions to prevent people around me from becoming victims.

Violent crime goes down when more citizens are armed. Statistaclly, when a person chooses to carry a firearm, it has a disproportionate effect on the crime rate. She's not only protecting herself, but she's affecting criminals' preceptions about citizens being victims. Heck, citizens are more accurate shooters than the police.

I'm not saying that every person needs a weapon, but I think they should have that choice. Fireamrs are a great equalizer. They can make my grandmother as powerful as the largest felon you can think of.

If someone broke in and stole your car, went cavorting around, and ran over a family of four, should you be held responsible?

If someone borrowed your lawnmower, and accidentally ran over their foot, should you pay for their medical bills?

If a homeless man ate garbage out of your trash can and got food poisoning, should he be able to sue you for damages?

No... people are responsible for their own actions. If someone steals a weapon they commit a crime. If they commit a crime with that weapon, they are the one responsible. It is not the responsibility of a gun owner to lock up their weapons in a strong-box with a time-lock. Besides, that would defeat their purpose of home defense.

Incidentally, everyone has argued the merits of an armed citizenry on crime statistics, but there is a larger issue than that. An armed populace can defend itself from its own government. An unarmed populace is a captive populace, because when the people are unarmed, the only armed people are the criminals and the government. Either one is free to take advantage of the people. You may dismiss this argument because you feel safe with your government, but just remember, the Jews in Germany would have been a much more difficult target if they were armed. Disarming the populace is the first thing the Nazis did. It's also the first thing the Communists in the USSR did. It's hard to resist the gulags when you have nothing to defend yourself with.

You can tell yourself that it'll never happen in your country. You may even be right. But I know that if it ever happened here, I'd be heading for the hills with my weapons, there to join the heavily armed militia members that I always made fun of. And between squirts of tobacco juice and monosyllabic rumblings, I'll hear an awful lot of "I told you so."

ok. i never meant to imply that a gunowner should be held responsible for the crime committed with his weapon, only with the fact that the weapon fell into the wrong hands in the first place.

say a man gets into your house with the intention of raping your wife, finds one of your weapons within easy access, and decides that if he shot and killed her there would then be no witnesses. so he rapes your wife and shoots her point blank in the head with your gun. could you really help but think that if the gun hadn't been available that your wife might still be alive?

say your teenager is shot and killed at the local mall by another teenager who is upset and unbalanced and has found a gun in his mother's nightstand. wouldn't your first questions be "where did he get the gun" and "where are his parents"? and upon finding that he got the gun from his parents wouldn't you feel that maybe they've been criminally negligent for allowing such a situation to occur? perhaps if the gun were not available he would have just gone to his room, played icp real loud and punched a hole in the wall.

but in either of these cases, you don't feel that there should be some accountability for the people who let the criminals get the guns in the first place?

what about the gun shop owner who sold the guns (or at least one of them) used in the littleton incident? wasn't he convicted in some way? do you think he should have been?

i'll grant that both sides of the issue have merit. i'll also say that statistics exist for both sides of the argument. i think officers should carry. i don't think every other tom, dick, and jane should own a handgun. i feel that there should be more control over who gets them, to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. if the process of purchasing a weapon were a little more stringent, then maybe the casual gun owners would cease to be. only the people who were really serious about the responsibility of owning and keeping arms would feel the process was worth going through.

and, i guess i should have mentioned this first, but i did want to address your examples, colonel:

a car is a tool of transportation. to own a car you must pass tests and be of age. while a car can be lethal, it is not designed to kill.

a lawnmower is a tool of maintenance. while it is potentially harmful, it is also really difficult to try to hurt yourself with a lawn mower. it is not a weapon.

garbage is a byproduct of existence. it is everywhere. it makes people ill on a daily basis. in industrial cases, yes it is possible to sue for damages as a result of injury through waste. on a more private level, garbage is not a tool to maim with. besides, the homeless man couldn't afford the lawyer.

a gun is created, designed, and produced with one intention in mind, and that is to tear a big hole in whatever it is fired at. it's functional purpose of being is to injure and kill. it is a tool of destruction. it should be controlled.

If someone breaks into my house intent on rapping my wife, I think she would shoot him, and the whole problme would be solved. We need to replace our carpet anyway. Assuming that someone was able to do something to my wife (she's pretty mean in a fight), and the perpatrator was intent on eliminating weapons, there are numerous weapons that are readily avaible. There are kitchen knives, there is strangulation by hands, pillowcases or whatever.

As for a teenager taking the gun, I wouldn't blame the parents for the actual incident. I'd blame them for doing a lousy job parenting. Teenagers are old enough to understand some of what they do. I think shooting people is one of those things that a teenager would understand is worng, and the teenager should be blamed for it.

If a person left guns laying around for a younger child to get a hold of, I might, be interested in pursuing the matter as a civl matter, but not a criminal one.

It's my understanding that someone was prosecuted for selling weapons to the perpatrators of the Littleton shootings. The seller should have been prosecuted for it. No one should sell weapons to a juvenile without the juvenile's parents being there.

A firearm is a weapon. When used to its ultimate extent, it does casue great bodily harm and death. However, it is only a tool, and the user decides to use it for good or ill.

sorry, hate to post again so soon, but i've just remembered a few things...

a car owner IS responsible for his or her own vehicle. two examples (and these are true stories, not hypothetical situations):

a few years back in my neighborhood, a thirteen year old boy and his fifteen year old girlfriend stole his aunt's ford tempo. they took this car on a joyride through the subdivision at speeds of 30 and 35 mph (the speed limit is 15 or 20. the streets are narrow, lined with cars, the streets all intersect at 90 degree angles, and there are speed bumps). the kid took the corner of my street at about 30, lost control of the vehicle, mowed over a lamppost/mailbox, and plowed into the house across the street from me and it's owner's truck. the owner of the tempo was held responsible for the damages (she was not the boy's guardian, just his aunt. the car was "stolen", she did not give permission for him to be in it.)

earlier this year, before my husband an i were married, we switched cars for the day (we do this quite often. i drive a full size pickup, he drives an olds, sometimes he runs errands in the truck while i'm at work). on his way home from his work, he rear ended another driver with my truck. the subsequent damage claims were filed against my insurance (as the owner), not his insurance (as the driver).

i guess it varies by situation, but yes, the owner of a vehicle is somewhat responsible for incidents involving the vehicle.

actually, in the littleton case, it was my understanding that the sale was made to a girlfriend of one of the boys, and she was of age.

Yes, but that's civil liablity not criminal liablity. The first one seems to be questionable. I would hope that a godd lawyer could have gotten the lady off the hook for that one.