Thread: Firearms: The Common Person & the Criminal

I received the below piece and edited it a bit; thought it an interesting topic for consideration.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm to accost, maim or kill another person, but, to keep from being intimidated, maimed or killed by another person.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because of ill intent towards others, but, in recognition that in this world there are many who do have ill intent on others.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they’re paranoid, but, in recognition that there are very real threats in this world.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they are evil, but, because they have lived long enough to recognize and acknowledge, not deny, that there is evil in this world.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because of hate of the government, but, in recognition of the limitations of the government.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they are angry, but, so that they don't have to spend the rest of their life hating themselves for failing to be prepared when confronted with ill intent.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they want to shoot someone; they own a firearm because they want to die at a ripe old age in their bed from natural causes, not wounds suffered by a home intruder or on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

The common man doesn’t own a firearm to make me feel like a man, but, in recognition that they may have to defend themselves or more importantly, their loved ones or others weaker than themselves.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they feel inadequate, but, in recognition of the fact that the common criminal will only accost you with calculated advantage and when unarmed and facing three armed thugs, you are inadequate.

The common person doesn’t own a firearm because they love it, but, because they love life and those who make life meaningful to them.

Personally, I own a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whooping'.....author unknown (but common sense can be brilliant!)

Some Thoughts

Police protection is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, usually the police investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

The History on Gun Control

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929
to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


In 1911,Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

History has repeated shown that people who own weapons, were citizens of their country, whereas people who were not allowed to own weapons, became subjects to the ruling class.


During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were armed.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN.

SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

The 2nd Amendment was drafted and ratified by our government in the interest of the people and in recognition of the limitations of government, isn’t it illogical that there are those in the government who would eliminate the ability for the people to protect themselves, their interests and loved ones from forces the government cannot stop?

A long time ago I read a billboard sign by the side of the road, it said:

"When guns are outlawed; only outlaws will have guns"

This was in New York, a state that prohibits its citizens from owning a hand gun unless you have a permit.

Great piece, it does seem very common sense to me. All we have to do is look and see where all the mass murders have happened lately as well as in the past as has been pointed out, they happened where people couldnt defend themselves such as gun free zones. Every time gun laws go into effect violent crime rises, and as has happened everywhere gun ownership is mandatory, violent crime decreases. The one thing that can be counted on is criminals taking the easy route and there is nothing easier than harming an unarmed person.

My views on guns especially handguns vary but after a career in Law Enforcement, well,I'll keep them to myself however this topic has too much hype and emotion and there is too much misinformation and outright falsehoods spoken to support many views. Most have already made up their minds either way but if your one of the few who haven't do yourself a favor and do some hard impartial research before you take a stand either way.

Hi thebigspendur,

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

My views on guns especially handguns vary but after a career in Law Enforcement, well,I'll keep them to myself however this topic has too much hype and emotion and there is too much misinformation and outright falsehoods spoken to support many views. Most have already made up their minds either way but if your one of the few who haven't do yourself a favor and do some hard impartial research before you take a stand either way.

This is indeed a very wise statement.

I know nothing about the gun culture in the USA apart from what I see on Sky tv channel "badboys",and is only seen from the police point of view.
In some ways I'm glad guns are not allowed by law in the UK.Things are bad enough here without having the extra dimension of firearms.
There have been times when i get angry with people ,particularly thugs who get in my taxi and treat me like s..t,then get out and walk off without paying telling me "if i want it come and get it" sort of thing.I can tell you the red mist comes down and I know I want to kill them -I'm afraid that if I had one I would probably use it on the scum.
That being said the world is crazy -If guns were allowed here they would be the ones who would pull one on me-take all my money and leave me dead in the car.
There are reality programs on Sky that show people who have been shot to death lying in pools of blood and it is a very sad and sobering sight.
Best leave guns to those who know about them!!
Regards
Noggs

Interesting responses. Bigspendur, we share a common career in law enforcement, I'm at 32 years service right now and yes, it is an individual choice and anyone making the choice to own or use firearms should become informed on the laws, use and care, giving careful consideration to all aspects before deciding to own/use or not.

I bold the word choice because that is the purpose of the thread, to point out some facts that surround the common person's reason for choosing to own firearms, and histroical references to what can happen when a government, ruler or ruling class eliminates that right of choice from a country or culture.

As well, the other poster from the U.K. mentions the Gun Culture which, I would say is an intended projection rather than an accurate profile of the average person, and in this case American who owns or uses firearms. In short, intentional mis-information.

The important thing about this issue and so many other issues is the right of choice. I find it concerning that when the existing laws are ignored, or senteces diluted, our legislators seem inclined to decide to create additional laws, the result of which restrict only those who obey the laws in the first place...and not the criminally intended.

Finally, the last homicide I worked on involved an individual who delievered furniture for a living, made a delivery to the residence of a couple and there fixed on the wife. Some weeks later, he knocked on the door of that residence one evening and the wife answered. The husband, (a school teacher without home protection was in another room), the intruder shot her in the leg when she tried to escape and when the husband entered the front room, the intruder pointed him down with the handgun, tied him up, took the wife into the bedroom and stabbed her in the heart with a kitchen knife. Then he returned to the living room, stabbed the bound husband in the same manner, and set the house on fire with three children sleeping. Fortunately, and a miracle, the fire when out and smoldered, creating smoke that the neighbors saw, who called the fire department.

About one year later, the same individual tried the exact same thing in a home about 50 miles away. Entering the home, using the wife to subdue the husband, and then binding the husband and taking the wife to another room. The husband managed to loosen himself, retrieved his home defense and shot the intruder to death. Facts, not culture or hype!

So the second guy was better at getting out of restraints?

I am all for gun ownership, but that story doesnt help the argument to me

Originally Posted by hardblues

Interesting responses. Bigspendur, we share a common career in law enforcement, I'm at 32 years service right now and yes, it is an individual choice and anyone making the choice to own or use firearms should become informed on the laws, use and care, giving careful consideration to all aspects before deciding to own/use or not.

I bold the word choice because that is the purpose of the thread, to point out some facts that surround the common person's reason for choosing to own firearms, and histroical references to what can happen when a government, ruler or ruling class eliminates that right of choice from a country or culture.

As well, the other poster from the U.K. mentions the Gun Culture which, I would say is an intended projection rather than an accurate profile of the average person, and in this case American who owns or uses firearms. In short, intentional mis-information.

The important thing about this issue and so many other issues is the right of choice. I find it concerning that when the existing laws are ignored, or senteces diluted, our legislators seem inclined to decide to create additional laws, the result of which restrict only those who obey the laws in the first place...and not the criminally intended.

Finally, the last homicide I worked on involved an individual who delievered furniture for a living, made a delivery to the residence of a couple and there fixed on the wife. Some weeks later, he knocked on the door of that residence one evening and the wife answered. The husband, (a school teacher without home protection was in another room), the intruder shot her in the leg when she tried to escape and when the husband entered the front room, the intruder pointed him down with the handgun, tied him up, took the wife into the bedroom and stabbed her in the heart with a kitchen knife. Then he returned to the living room, stabbed the bound husband in the same manner, and set the house on fire with three children sleeping. Fortunately, and a miracle, the fire when out and smoldered, creating smoke that the neighbors saw, who called the fire department.

About one year later, the same individual tried the exact same thing in a home about 50 miles away. Entering the home, using the wife to subdue the husband, and then binding the husband and taking the wife to another room. The husband managed to loosen himself, retrieved his home defense and shot the intruder to death. Facts, not culture or hype!

IIRC the UK did away with private ownership of firearms under Tony Blair when a wacko went to a school with a long gun and shot up a bunch of kids ? One way or the other, did they succeed in getting all of the guns ..... or just those in the possession of law abiding citizens ?

We in the USA have seen the results of stringent gun laws. The Sullivan Law, circa 1911, in NYC was the most stringent in the USA for decades and the criminals, for whom law is the least of their concerns, were not deterred by it as crime stats show.

In 1934 an episode known as "The Kansas City Massacre" led to the federal regulation of private ownership of fully automatic weapons such as the Thompson Sub Machine Gun. A favorite of gangsters and desperados of the time.

Fully automatic weapons were the firearm of choice of the 'Cocaine Cowboys' in the 1980s and are still quite popular with the gang culture here in the US. The Thompson has been replaced by modern technology but the full auto is quite common among the criminal class. Less common among the law abiding.

I have been a member of the NRA since 1973 and a life member since 1976. I was against ''cop killer" bullets and see no need for private ownership of high cap magazines or assault rifles. Matter of fact I would gladly give up my guns if I thought that the gun laws could be enforced and the criminals would not have access to firearms either. Unfortunately some cliches are too true such as,"when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

In 1995 Canada implemented long rifle gun control on top of the already restricted firearms such as hand guns and automatic weapons. Recently I applied to have my License renewed for my long rifle guns and it cost me nothing. But from 1995 to present, the Canadian government has spent $2 billion dollars on the program.

The laughable part is that there is currently an amnesty in place for all Canadians who have not yet registered there guns to protect them from criminal prosecution. It originally expired at the end of May 2010 and now they have extended it to 2011. Basically, they can not enforce the gun law, it costs too much money.

To me, the right to own a firearm is similar if not the same right to be bale to start a fire to stay warm.

Anyway, I like your article. Thanks.

Slartibartfast...there is no argument, position or suggestion on my part...as stated...just facts, what you get or don't get from it is all good for you and me...I do need to comment on one thing...your comment about one guy being good about getting out of restraints and the other guy not...all sorts of things can or could have figured into that...not quite that simple and we'll leave it at that...but I think I included the fact he didn't own a firearm, so, it probably wouldn't have done him too much good even if he was a little quicker cause the bad guy brought his you see...make sense?