Welcome to the 2nd Amendment Room

[Snowhitsky]

Richard,
Your people stood by and left the government confiscate private property. That is exactly why we behold our Second Amendment. If your government becomes tyrannical, what option do you have for removal? Did your people learn nothing from what the Nazis did to unarmed populations in WW II ? That should be recent enough history to refresh us all of the cost of  an unarmed citizenry.

What government confiscated what private property?

I drive around France a lot for my job and I can tell you it's covered in memorials to the victims of nazi occupation. Some of those were armed citizens doing their patriotic duty against a regular army, the rest were civilian hostages. It happens in just about every country occupied by a foreign power (including the US) and the best way of avoiding that is having efficient government-run armed forces rather than relying on mobs of armed civilians with practically zero military value.

In Spain we had a civil war from 1936 to 1939 at a time where guns were pretty much in free circulation. A significant proportion of wartime casualties were caused by neighbours shooting each other over mundane issues (inheritances, petty disputes and jealousies) in the first month and disguising the murders as politically motivated. Law and order broke down when government forces were no longer involved in maintaining it. To this day there are huge numbers of unmarked mass graves containing relatives of neighbours  within a couple of miles of most villages. Following that bloodbath the Spanish love affair with firearms waned to the point where the ownership of a handgun (shotguns and rifles for hunting being a different matter) is now seen as rather odd and dangerous.

By the way, what about the US government's unconstitutional expulsion of US citizens of Japanese descent in WW2? Don't recall mass armed resistance of outraged citizens defending the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens then. I also don't recall state militias intervening to stop desegragation of schools in the South imposed by the Federal government (in defence of the Constitution granted but you get my point).

[Snowhitsky]

And not judging Spain or Europe either, but as Buzzbee said "of all places you would think Europe had a different mindset on guns" but there are many points being missed. With average response times in many areas of the US being 20 minutes or longer, is there really protection by the law if they are speeding as fast as they can to get to you but still 20 minutes away?

Response times in Europe aren't much better. I doubt the police in my area would even be able to locate my farmhouse let alone under 20 minutes. The difference between the US and other first world countries is not just about gun-ownership (legal or not) it is mostly about the reality and perception of crime. On this side of the Atlantic, violent crime is a rare occurence and most of it is alcohol fuelled brawls at the weekend.

To give you an example, last week we had an armed bank robbery in the NW of Spain with the robber and one policewoman shot dead and another seriously injured. The robbery in itself was a novelty but the shootout was an extraordinary event and the deaths even more so. Hopefully this situation isn't routine in the US but over here it is a very rare occurence on par with being hit by lightning.

[buzzbee]

All well and good, but if and when that rare violent crime occurs,I would much rather have the option of defense. That well run government can't be there in time for a crisis intervention when someone approaches your door with the intent of committing a crime.
Cozy feelings are nice to have, but look at the world around you. I prefer to have a big stick and not need to use it, than wait for someone with a big stick come to my aid when I have been subdued.
As an aside, most of the violent crimes occur in our country where  the strongest gun laws are in place. Criminals try not to be confronted with an armed homeowner defending their castle.
It is not an open crap shoot on every street corner like the media tries to portray it.
 And remember this :   Those that beat their guns into plow shares will be ruled over by those who do not.

[Michael Bush]

>Hmmm, so not much trust in the rest of the Constitution then, I'd have thought that any objective study of the American Constitution and your Federal political history would lead you to quite the opposite conclusion - wasn't it the Washington that outlawed slavery, forced through Civil Rights and ended segregation in the 60s?

We've had presidents and governments who ignored the Supreme Court's decisions on what is constitutional before.  In the end it's the people with the guns who make the rules.  When the supreme court told Jackson that his removal of the Cherokee was unconstitutional, Jackson said "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it." and he openly defied them and removed the Cherokee anyway.

I'm always amazed to hear people say that "violence never solved anything".  I've never met a WWII vet who believed that.  Certainly we should make all reasonable attempts to avoid violence as the solution, but when all else fails, no matter how we "feel" about it, no matter how unfair it seems, violence is  the final arbitrator.  The leverage just before that final arbitration is the potential for violence.

[Richard M]

I'm always amazed to hear people say that "violence never solved anything".  I've never met a WWII vet who believed that.  Certainly we should make all reasonable attempts to avoid violence as the solution, but when all else fails, no matter how we "feel" about it, no matter how unfair it seems, violence is  the final arbitrator.  The leverage just before that final arbitration is the potential for violence.

The problem is that a large number of people (11000 a year or thereabouts in your neck of the woods) evidently don't avoid violence as a final solution; it doesn't just apply to the law abiding citizen defending his home and family - in practice it ends up being the guy who ends up copping a third eye because his dog crapped on the neighbour's lawn. Simple, silly disputes that in other parts of the world get solved with fisticuffs end up with the ultimate in violence because there's a gun to hand.

If we were awash with guns, the same thing thing would happen here too, but thankfully it usually ends up with two idiots in ER feeling somewhat embarrassed as they have their cut eye stitched and broken nose cleaned up, rather than one in the morgue and the other facing life behind bars.

And just to follow up on comments made to the effect that assault weapons aren't designed to kill? Well to be honest - cobblers - I think that's splitting hairs and I'm pretty sure the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School would beg to differ too. I well remember shaking my head in disbelief after seeing a senior police officer ask "what's wrong with our kids that they would do this", or words to that effect. Well my response is that the average American kid is the same as the average British, Australian or French kid.

Most are OK I'm sure, but some inevitably have problems and do nasty antisocial stuff, the only difference is that the British/French kids' mothers don't keep an M4/AR15 in the wardrobe to enable them to make a really big statement. At worst the Brit/French kid runs amok with a knife and one or two people get bad cuts, (and yes maybe someone dies), whilst the vast majority of possible victims can make a run for it until someone else belts him around the head with a cricket bat/chair/whatever. Unfortunately, it's darned hard to outrun or fend off a bullet.

And on the subject of massacres, a semi-auto, 30 rd mag rifle is the boss when it comes to inflicting mass casualties in a very short time, so forgetting handguns for home defence and hunting rifles, legitimate ownership of which can be justified, I find it really hard to understand why you'd want one of these things or be happy for the potential crazies in your community to have one.

If the justification is that defence against future tyranny means you need a capable weapon, well where does that finish? If you're thinking urban warfare, then shouldn't you also be demanding the right for anyone who feels the need to be able to bear grenades, landmines, MANPAD missile systems, 0.50 cal HMGs, anti-armour weapons etc? Where does this logic end?

Back to gun massacres - interesting that in Australia (where a massacre is defined as 5 or more deaths), the list of such massacres since 1980 goes like this:

1981
1984
1984
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1990
1991
1992
1993
1996
1996 (Port Arthur Tasmania - 35 dead)

(1996-1997 ban on semi autos, gun buyback scheme.)

Since 1996 (ie 18 years) we've had a single gun massacre - a farmer who shot his family and then himself a few months ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

[Snowhitsky]

Well my response is that the average American kid is the same as the average British, Australian or French kid.

I beg to differ. I went to school in France in an international school with over 50 different nationalities of which the British and Americans were the largest contingents. Those who came from the US or the UK were significantly more violent/bullying than local kids or foreigners raised locally. When I returned to the UK as an adult I was shocked at the levels of violence I came across compared to those I'd experienced elsewhere in Europe (France, Switzerland, Spain). Even within England I noticed far more violence in the north than in the south of the country. And alcohol isn't the issue, a drunk Englishmen has a much greater propensity to violence than a drunk Spaniard.

[Michael Bush]

>The problem is that a large number of people (11000 a year or thereabouts in your neck of the woods)

You'll find most of those occurring in places with very strict gun control.  I've never lived in nor will I ever live in such a place.  It was not unusual in Laramie Wyoming to see people walking down the street with a pistol on their hip.  The only shooting I ever heard of while I lived there was a drug dealer who was going to kill a rival but got the wrong house.  He didn't live long.  The sign in the bank asked you to check your gun with the guard and remove your ski mask. 

There was less than 1 "gun death" per 100,000 per year in the state (.858 per 100,000 to be exact) in 2010.  In 2010, in a state where guns outnumber people 7 to 1, there were 8 murders, 5 of which were committed with guns.  In California where people outnumber guns 4 to 1 (in other words there are 28 times as many guns per person in Wyoming...), there were 1,257 people murdered with firearms which comes to 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 that same year (4 times as many murders by guns per 100,000).  But I've never understood the reason for separating "gun homicides".  Murder is murder and it's often committed with tire irons, kitchen knives or baseball bats...

Try this another way, in a state where there are 28 times as many guns  there are 1/4 as many murders by guns per 100,000... hard to make a case that guns are the cause of violence...



http://wyomingnews.com/articles/2013/03/31/news/01top_03-31-13.txt#.VJLTjCvF-So

[Snowhitsky]

Michael, whether it's 4 to 1 or 7 to 1 that is still an insane amount of firearms in circulation from our perspective. Legal gun ownership in 2010 in the UK was 1.800.000 (of which: 1.300.000 shotguns) out of a population of 61 million. That's 1 firearm per 33 people and 1 handgun/rifle per 122 people. Assuming you were talking about Wyoming, that state holds twice the firearms of the whole of the UK!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates

On the murders front and by comparison, the UK had 1.04 murders/100.000 and 0,07 murders/100.000 using firearms (and most of those would be within the drug gangs) in 2011/2012.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html


Outside the armed forces the only person I know of in the UK who owns a firearm is my brother-in-law who uses it to put down sick or injured farm animals. To this day I have been unable to locate the locked gun cabinet where he keeps it as he's (rightly) obsessed with keeping it out of reach of kids.

While I absolutely respect your constitutional rights as US citizens, for me the bottom line is this: I live without fear for my life or that of my loved ones and I do not fear my government. You need a firearm to achieve the same thing.

[Michael Bush]

>Michael, whether it's 4 to 1 or 7 to 1 that is still an insane amount of firearms in circulation

In California it's more like 1 to 4 as opposed to Wyoming's 7 to 1...  Why would it matter if someone has 7 guns?  They can only shoot one at a time anyway.  Limiting a gun owner to one gun is like limiting a golfer to one club.  A .22 LR is not a good deer rifle but it's a great squirrel gun and plinker.  A .25-06 is not a good squirrel gun, but it's a wonderful deer rifle.  A .25-06 is probably a better deer rifle than a 7mm rem mag but the 7mm rem mag might be a better Elk gun... and none of those is even legal for hunting ducks or pheasants... and, imo, all are almost worthless for self defense.  It's nice to be able to hit an elk with a high powered rifle from a bipod at 600 yards, but that kind of gun does not work well at 2 feet as most self defense situations are.  Here is a quick list of the guns any serious hunter would need to have the right tool for the job:

Geese 10 gauge mag full choke 36" barrel (bigger and further away)
Ducks 12 gauge mag full choke 36" barrel (not as big but often further than pheasants)
Pheasants 12 gauge double barrel full and modified 32" barrel (bigger and further than a quail bu not as big or as far as ducks)
Quail 20 gauge double barrel modified and cylinder 26" barrel (usually close and small)
Snakes, squirrels, rabbets .410 shotgun modified choke
Rabbets, squirrels, skunks, varmints etc. .22 LR (not shot to pick out)
Beer, Moose and Elk magnum high powered rifle (.300 Wetherby, .300 win mag, 7mm rem mag etc.)
Open country Deer, Antelope, big horn sheep etc. medium high powered rifle (.25-06, 6.5mmx55mm Swedish, .308 etc.)
Brush gun Deer (.30-30, 45-70 etc.)
Varmint, coyote, prairie dogs, rock chucks, etc. long range (.223, .22-250, .220 swift etc.)

That's 10 right there and I could add some more for special target competitions... and then there is self defense for which none of these qualify in my opinion.

The basic design criteria of guns varies.  Anti-gun people are fond of saying that pistols serve no purpose other than killing people, but that is not their design criteria.  The design criteria of a pistol is to stop a threat, not to kill the threat.  The design criteria of a deer rifle is to quickly and humanely kill a deer (which is a man sized creature).  This is evident in the statistics. 

The mortality rate for someone shot with a pistol is about 17% (I've seen numbers as low as 2% and as high as 20%)
The mortality rate for someone shot with a shotgun is about 80% (probably because most of them are accidents and the distance is far enough for the shot to lose velocity)
The mortality rate for someone shot with a rifle is higher than 90%
BTW
The mortality rate for someone stabbed with an icepick is 14%
The mortality rate for someone stabbed with a butcher knife is 13%

Let's get to the real issue though.  The root of the problem with all the anti-gun statistics is the illogical assumption that the CAUSE of violence is guns.  That the cause of suicide is guns.  There is no evidence to support those assumptions.  The fact is the cause of violence is people.  The cause of more or less violence in one country or another (or rural vs city) is culture.  In a culture with a concept of "defending your honor" there is typically more violence.  The cause of suicide is depression.  People have been killing each other since Cain and Able and guns have only been around for the last few hundred years.  People have been killing themselves just as long.  Pills, razor blades and crashing into bridge abutments seem to work just as well as firearms for suicide today.  Falling on a sword or poison were typical in the past.  Tire irons, baseball bats, kitchen knives, golf clubs, hammers, or whatever blunt object is handy seems to work fine for murder.  Once you've made the primary error in logic, "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" (after this, because of this) every conclusion you draw afterwards is not logical. I think it's a safe bet that 99.999% of people who have died, drank water the day the died.  But what does that statistic prove?  How dangerous water was?  I could take it a step further.  I'll bet 99.999% of people who died from pneumonia (fluid in their lungs) drank water (fluid).  Does that mean they shouldn't have drank water?

The other issue I have with the anti-gun propaganda is the abuse of statistics.  There's a story about a scientist, a mathematician and statistician who went deer hunting.  The scientist shot five feet to the left of the deer.  The mathematician shot five feet to the right of the deer.  The statistician jumped up and down and yelled "we got him!"

They typical numbers for an anti-gun propaganda will quote death rates by guns as if the guns committed the crimes.  They don't compare deaths by murder to deaths by murder or deaths by suicide to deaths by suicide.  Obviously in places where guns are not common, murders will be commuted using what is handy.   The same for suicide.  A person in a culture where guns outnumber people 7 to 1 such as Wyoming will have more suicide by gun than a place where guns are not available and that place will probably have more suicide by pills or razor.  Yet they will imply that those suicides by gun would not have taken place had there not been a gun.  And they will lump suicide deaths in with "gun deaths" which makes it sound like those people were murdered when they were not.  They will also come up with statistics about "children" and guns and then define "children" as anyone under 21 and include all the gang shootings.

But obviously comparing murder to murder and suicide to suicide is not in line with the agenda of blaming the guns...

[BlueBee]

I agree with Richard M point by point but then I share his background (apart from the artillery and going to Australia) and I think this is what it's all about.

Maybe I haven’t been “Americanized” enough since my relatives moved here from Europe some 150 years ago.  I completely agree with our international friends Richard M and Snowhitsky.  X:X  The facts are there for those who want to look.

As an aside, I must say I do find it amusing that almost any problem, no matter how banal, mentioned on a US forum usually ends up with at least one person suggesting a solution involving a firearm.

You are so right!

[BeeMaster2]

"Try this another way, in a state where there are 28 times as many guns  there are 1/4 as many murders by guns per 100,000... hard to make a case that guns are the cause of violence..." Michael Bush.

In other words, when everyone knows that the other guy is probably armed, they are much more sociable and less likely to try to rob or attack you.
Jim

[Michael Bush]

>The facts are there for those who want to look.

The "facts" are merely unrelated (usually cherry picked and skewed by what is included and excluded) statistics which do nothing to establish cause and effect.  Where is the cause and effect?  Violent crime has dropped from a high in 1980 of 10.2 murders per 100,000 in the US (not "handgun murders" just murder)  to an all time low (as of 2013) since at least 1960 (I don't have numbers available further back right now) of 4.5 per 100,000.  I think it's every bit, if not more realistic, for me to assume that what has happened since the high in 1980 is that most states have passed concealed carry laws.  So murders have declined by more than half during a period where 29 states legalized concealed carry.  You can easily make a case for a mechanism for how honest citizens being armed would lower the murder rate as opposed to a mechanism for why a gun makes someone into a murderer.  The "facts" are that as we allowed more citizens to be armed more of the time murder rates plummeted.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[Michael Bush]

Let's try applying the same logic as "guns cause people to become murderers" or "guns cause suicides" to other things and maybe point out the irrationality of it:

matches cause people to become arsonists
crowbars cause people to become burglers
hypodermic needles cause people to become mainline drug addicts
hemostats cause people to smoke grass
shot glasses cause people to become alcoholics
decks of cards cause people to become addicted gamblers
water causes people to drown people
butcher knives cause people to stab people
baseball bats cause people to become murderers who hit people in the head with bats
hammers cause people to become murderers who hit people in the head hammers

[GSF]

I can somewhat understand the position of our friends from across the pond. We are a gun culture -  and love it! We have a saying; "If guns were outlawed, then only outlaws would have guns."

The unfortunate truth around here with the murders is it's mainly blacks. These numbers aren't exact because I don't remember, but last year Montgomery, Alabama had something like 71 homocides. If only the white on white murders would have been counted the number would have been something like 5.

The black family has been destroyed by gov't freebies. My son works in the emergency medical field. He told me it wasn't nothing to be on a call at 2 in the morning during a school week and see very young black kids (10-13ish) all up and down the streets. If this was a working class family they would have been put to bed hours ago. These kids are from single parent (mom) homes. Poor things don't have a chance. A child gets messed up mentally when they grow up with no rules or responsibilities. The black folks I know who work and try to scratch out a living don't fall in this category.

[Snowhitsky]

The fact is the cause of violence is people.  The cause of more or less violence in one country or another (or rural vs city) is culture.

I agree 100% with you: the issue is people and their propensity for violence. Where we differ is the influence of firearms on the equation. You see firearms as a means of reducing risk to yourself and I see it as increasing it which is perfectly logical given our respective environments. If I lived in LA I suspect I might treat myself to a little extra "insurance" and if you lived in my neck of the woods you'd eventually forget to lock the front door before going to bed as I frequently do.

Incidentally, I have nothing against firearms per se. I was a professional soldier in the British Army so I have handled quite a varied range of ordnance and I have first-hand experience in facing down armed thugs with the threat of force.. Weapons always have and always will have a place in maintaining law and order it's just I'd rather they were largely in the hands of professionals of my choice. Personally, I have to say there's nothing quite like the sound of automatic 30mm cannon or .50 cal rounds flying overhead to focus people's minds on conflict resolution.

By the way, interesting list of hardware you list there. Out of curiosity, is there ANY wildlife left in Nebraska?   ;)

[Michael Bush]

>By the way, interesting list of hardware you list there. Out of curiosity, is there ANY wildlife left in Nebraska

The deer are so overpopulated that they are dying from several plagues and hitting them is a major cause of auto accidents.  We have Elk here and a season on them, and there were no elk here for almost 100 years.  We have big horn sheep here now as well and a season on them.  They were gone for almost 100 years as well.  We have wild turkeys, pheasants, quail etc. at levels not seen since the early pioneer days.  We even have a mountain lion season.  We do have game laws and enforcement... I can't find the exact dates, but we actually had no deer season from sometime back in the teens of the 1900s until, I think the 1960s.  Deer were considered extinct in Nebraska in 1915 as were Elk. 

[iddee]

MB, you forgot to mention that the majority of the money used to bring them all back came from hunting and fishing licenses, and taxes on guns, ammo, fishing equip. and other wildlife expenses. In other words, the hunters paid to bring them back.

[beemaster]

Way too much to comment on since my last post - but I'll try.

First, statistics are SPIN material - the numbers you get are those you seek, every time. Watch political polls and see how the wording changes the numbers to reflect on what ever the party wants it to convey.

This topic has gotten very generic, missing the real basis of why we still hold the 2nd so close to our culture. Our country was formed in bits and pieces, first the Eastern regions, later the far Western lands of California and finally filling out the middle states where life is supported by ample farm land and good water and other needed resources.
People moved to where life could survive with minimal imported resources, people tilled the land, grew crops and raised animals for food, clothing, sale and barter.

Weapons fed your family, no one was out there with a knife tackling a buffalo for food or trade, they had guns and it kept them alive through the harshest of Winters. Guns were protection against anyone who threatened the Pursuit of Happiness (as was brought up earlier) people took their families across this landscape to never return to where they came from. The branched out, forming camp villiages, farming lands, town and cities and all this will minimal police and armies. having weapons and everyone in a family knowing how to use them saved countless lives throughout history.

These were tough times, handguns we mostly revolvers, typically 5 shot and often carried two at a time, on horseback or on foot, and in wagon trains. Those with weapons survived, no less than the animals with larger teeth and bigger claws feed well over herbivores who mostly crushed grass and seed and were low on the food chain.

Of all the species in history, man was the only one to make tool to benefit him in battle, from the earlies spears, shields and swinging and throwing weapons - man's superior ability to make tools that both defended himself and also feed him destined him to be a survivor.

Many people say MAN is at the top of the food chain, I say no - toss a naked and unarmed man in a ring with a tiger, bear, even a badger or POed opossum - the man will likely not fair very well. It is our ability to create equalizers that raise us above the others.

So back to today and in America the citizenship has some neat weapons at their disposal. Most are well regulated and of tend very costly "stamps" are purchased to improve the effectiveness of a weapon - $200 for a suppressor (silencer) stamp - add some subsonic ammo and even a .22LR pistol can be a formidable weapon.

I'm late into this whole gun thing (what you guys who can't have weapons call foolish) my first gun purchase was at 55 years of age. Guns in the Central Eastern US states are far less prominent the in the South and in those Western States where farm animals out number humans hundreds to one. Areas where you are the sole protector, the law on your own expanse of land - a place where intruders and rustlers are foolishly on the wrong piece of land. I know several people on this forum with thousands of acres of property - when livestock ends up missing or mutilated, it's time to find the problem and solve it, not times to call the police who will them the "This is a private issue, we are here to uphold the law, not to babysit your herd". Police recognize the law and the people have the right to protect what is theirs.

So let's leave the country, now we are in a neighborhood of people who go to work everyday, spending 2/3rd of their lives awaiting retirement - doing what is right and being part of a community. Then someone's home is broken into, jewelery taken, things of value and great memories, items past down generation to generation - luckily no one hurt this time. The neighbors learn of the break in and step up their vigilance at protecting their homes - hoping they aren't the next target. But the cocky thief returns, this time to find someone home - someone unable to protect themselves and the get pushed around, tied up, possibly beaten and worse of all, maybe killed. Now the neighborhood is at full alert, ready for anything and willing to put down anyone entering their homes with intent to do what it takes to rob the homeowner blind. You tell me, what is the home own supposed to do? whip out a golf club, a fly swatter, wave a knife at them - what if you are out numbered, caught off guard and can't get to a phone (don't worry the police will be there in 20 minutes if you do get to call 911) - I'm sure you can keep them entertained for at least 20 minutes.

The homeowner who is prepared will make it known that whatever the intruders planned has now change dramatically - likely the bad guy(s) can see they are now on the wrong end of a powerful weapon and the just run - or drop to the floor as the homeowner tells them to do so until the police arrive. If the bad guys insist on tempting their luck, I see no alternative for the homeowner to show the intruder who is in control - there is no need for the infamous Warning Shot, the first shot is paced into the intruder where he likely will finally understand the game is over and if he lays down and stays down, the police will get them out of their, still able to walk out alive.

I'll state this, reading Spain and Australia and other gun restricted countries  - you learn to start fires with 2 sticks because you can't have matches and because you have gotten good at it, see no need for matches. This is how your thinking on guns is - you can't have them, and interestingly think that the bad guys don't have them either - so you are even going in. Well.... here the bad guys have guns. The law abiding citizen may never shoot their guns, some will at the ranges, other on their open properties - but shooting at a person is the farthest thing from their mind. But in that million to one chance a madman with homicidal thoughts breaks down your door, I'm not depending on pepper spray, or the better option wasp and hornet spray which shoots a stream 20 feet and can cause permanent blindness - I'm assuming the worse case scenario, which is the intruder has a gun and plans to use it if needed. My only job at that point is to get my family to a safe place if there is time, and if not make use of knowing my home layout and beat the intruder to the draw - ending the situation, saving my family and neighbors from the terror that threatens them and thanking the Forefathers for having the foresight to cement in our doctrines that life is the most precious gift and it is to be preserved at all cost.

I'd love to know what either of you would do (if you had a gun) and God forbid found someone physically punishing someone you loved at gun point. You gonna put your gun in a safe and grab a frying pan? You gonna chance that if you jump on him that you are strong enough to not become another victim? Call your 911 service? Or are you gonna use that gun in some fashion, pistol whip him, shout "stop I have a gun" or plug the creep in the back of the head putting him out of your miser.

I don't know what I would do, seriously I believe you need to quickly evaluate the situation, the take the right action - if he needs to be shot to stop a deadly assault, then do it - don't worry about the law, let the police or the courts figure it out. It is not your job to determine the degree of the assault, it is your job to stop the attack, and if the attacker is bigger and stronger than you, seemingly hopped up on drugs and you need to decide if this man charges me, will he get my gun, will he kill me and then my loved one - that's a lot to think about and there is no time to think about it - it's then you use the gun, stop him in his tracks, make sure the threat is over, place your gun safely out of range of the body, but where the police have access to it when they finally arrive - and explain your case.

I never want to kill anyone - I know you think that Americans wait around every day for the situation to arrive so they can pull out their guns and shoot and kill anyone they can deem a bad guy. That is as foolish an idea as saying people buy cars and ride around with intent of running over an elderly person because old folks have lived long enough and you'll be doing the world a favor because the old person is a danger behind the wheel.

I have 5 guns, I will have more soon - and I never want to have a reason to use one to end another persons life. I think that same thing goes for everyone here who is law abiding and just wants to be left alone to live their live in an honest and wholesome way.

[Michael Bush]

>MB, you forgot to mention that the majority of the money used to bring them all back came from hunting and fishing licenses, and taxes on guns, ammo, fishing equip. and other wildlife expenses. In other words, the hunters paid to bring them back.

Not only funded by the hunters, but the hunters started, funded, backed and insisted on game management.  All the conservationists who pushed to save the national forests and parks and who pushed for game management were hunters.

[BlueBee]

So it was the hunters who pushed the save the spotted owl? 

Wow, I learn something new every day.