How do you logically justify owning a gun for self defense?

Are you kidding? What "false" claims are you referring to?

 

If carry a gun was going to increase murders then we would be seeing an increase in the number of murders where CCW is allowed. We aren't. In fact, everywere CCW is allowed the murder rate goes DOWN!

The *ONLY* study I have seen from the gun banners that shows having a gun in the home increases one's chances of being killed is one that was riddled with errors. 1. They studied exactly one neighborhood. 2. If a gun was in the house it was marked as belonging to the homeowner, disregarding whether it was introduced by the criminal or not. 3. They made no attempt to quantify whether illegal activities were going on in the house or not.

The credibility of the gun banners is shot. They started off lying to the public which ruined their credibility. And they have never stopped lying.

 

This is an argumentative fallacy. Correlation does *NOT* equal causation. It is just as likely that dealing with criminals all day does something to the lawyers psyche.

Look up "cum hoc ergo propter hoc".

 

Wait a minute - you might be wrong. Did you ever see that cartoon Rock A Doodle? The rooster thought the sun came up every morning just because he sang and crowed and did the **** a doodle thing? ooops. My bad. You're right.

 

I wish a gun for self defence because at times the number of people and types of people I seek to defend myself from outweighs my ability to defend myself unarmed.

I appreciate that statistically I am more likely to shoot myself than I am an aggressor. More likely to murder someone or be murdered due to my ready access to a gun.
But I am not a statistic. I am man and part of that manliness is my ability and preparedness for war.
It is not myself I fear most. It is others.

 

In America, our culture was founded on the belief that one should never trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety. We were founded on the premise that every man has unalienable Rights. John Adams, the second president of the United States, summed it up best when he said:

"You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments; Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe"

The OP wants you to justify a Right that is above his / her ability to control in a constitutional Republic. Government only has the power to control people. Government has no authority to take away Rights they did not bestow upon us in the first place. And you just said the rest.

 

Lots of people spout stuff they believe because they Goggled some crap study put out by Josh Sugarless or Sarah Brady,
I know better as I served various capacities where a sidearm was a necessity, and My Sidearm is still on my side, and I have had Meth Addicts pull a knife on Me demanding money, if not for My Sidearm, I could have been killed, maybe I will lose someday, however, I am pretty old, so I am not too worried about that possibility.

 

You aren't more likely to shoot yourself. That is based on faulty studies that don't differentiate between who introduced the gun into a situation, the homeowner or the criminal.

 

Where I live, criminals don't really have guns. Sorry to be so foreign.

 

Where would that be, out of curiosity?

 

Don't you mean it increases a criminal's chances of becoming a victim? At my house, that's how it works.

 

Here is an important writing on Arms circa 1764, by Cesare Beccaria
Still relevant today;

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

_____________

References
Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments.

The views of people on Arms in most Countries was of the same mindset and not what Gun Control. Advocates would have you believe.

 

I'm English matey.

Essentially, only 1 in 100 of us keep guns.
Which means there is no ready access to them. Dangerous criminals don't have them or live in the same building with someone who does.
Not many people have them, so not many people can have them stolen or borrowed.
Not many criminals know how to make them, can get the ammo if they did, or have the gang infrastructure that includes a smuggling ring.
It's difficult and perhaps unwise to try and rob someone with one, since guns are frowned upon here and people don't openly admit to owning them. Guns are also kept in safes when not being used. The penalties for leaving one unsecured, or in your car... are minimum 5 years jail time.

So I have guns, and criminal do not. And the events of my life have reinforced this belief. No one has ever pulled a gun back on me. And while I routinely associate with criminals socially, they don't have any guns and I have loads.

 

Right, visit us in the falls,stop at Felons.

 

Sorry I'm still a bit foreign.

"The falls" is a place or a season? Felons is a place or a criminal?

 

As a Sanasac you should know the answer to your question.

 

Noted, but otherwise irrelevant.

Incorrect. What there is, is no ready legal access to them. There is a difference.

Pray tell how do you know this for certain?

Yet enough firearms are owned, that the legal owners could one day engage in a mass killing, just as has been witnessed before.

Again, how do you know this for certain?

As opposed to the united states for the sake of comparison?

In the united states, being a felon in possession of a firearm, even if it is not used in any other crime, is supposed to result in a mandatory five years in prison. Upon the last reviewing of firearm-related restrictions in the united states, it was suggested that a prohibited individual could face an additional five years for every round of ammunition that was in their possession as well. Depending upon magazine capacity, mere possession quickly amounts to a life sentence.

Pray tell why do you routinely associate with criminals in a social manner?

 

Why not.
Are you stuck up?

In the UK being a lisenced gun owner of clean record and good repute, but having your gun under your bed and not in it's safe, earns you 5 years. Inside your car while you are outside of your car, another 5 years.

After each gun massacre here, guns laws change dramatically,

The last one saw handguns and assault rifles banned. But it's not a gun culture. There weren't many handgun or assault rifle owners to ban.


The kind of firearms we own are limited in many ways to prevent mass killings. Shotguns are not allowed to be of concealable length or hold more than 3 shots at a time. Rifles are not allowed for self defense, nor can you have one at home without a registered place to shoot it. You can have one rifle of every calibre you can prove a use for. So 1 deer gun, 1 rabbit gun etc.
No auto rifles except .22LR

Now people still go on rampages but they don't get very high scores.

Here's the last one I remember. A guy with a double barrelled shotgun and a 22LR rabbit rifle

From wiki

The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.

So he got 12. But he'd of got more with a SAW!

 

Pray tell who are you ever addressing? Learn how to proper use the quote function.

A position that is devoid of any logic whatsoever.

Meaning what precisely?

Present your statistics to show that such is not the case.

Those who believe that such firearms are unsuitable for use in mass killings possess a lack of imagination.

When did saving lives become a numbers game?

 

The logic given is this.
Number one if you gun gets stolen because you were slacking, you are getting done for that.

You don't get to blame your girlfriends teenage son. You have a duty to keep the things safe. You are complicit in any crime your weapon gets into because it is your responsibility.
Don't leave it unattended. 5 years for a deterrent.

The second logic is to do with pre-meditation.
They want to charge you with first degree murder if you shoot someone. It's a deterrent, but it's also extra time for you to cool down.

If I wake up in the night, startled... see a burglar and reach under the bed and grab my gun and shoot him...
No pre-meditation. Manslaughter. Murder 2 or whatever you guys call it.
But... if I wake up, go get my keys from the safe place, go to the gunsafe, unlock then get my gun and kill him, that's premeditation. I had to think about it, to do it. It wasn't a reflex life or death response.


Saving lives has always been a numbers game. Nelsons Law. Battlefield statistics. When faced with two ships, 8 cannons shooting one ship to death then the second is faster than 4 cannons on each ship at the same time.

It's simple maths. I can't reload fast enough to kill everyone before they can run away. In a cinema scenario, I'd fire my three shots and then the crowd would get me.
It somewhat limits the imagination. Unlike an AK47. Now I can go to the cinema and watch Batman! Now I can kill everyone in my train carriage. Now I can go live vs LAPD.

The arms race didn't stop 200 years ago. An old shotty and 22, no high scores for you.

 

Perhaps he's an MP.

 

Firstly, learn how to use the quotation feature properly when addressing others. It exists for a reason.

Secondly,

More accurately it is a deterrent against legally owning a firearm, constructed in a manner meant to be as discouraging as possible, to keep the number of legal firearm owners artificially slow. The very notion that you cannot legally stop and refuel your motor vehicle simply because you have a firearm contained within it, is blatantly absurd to even consider.

What you describe above is the notion that the lives and well being of the criminal is deserving of greater consideration and protection than the lives and well being of the potential victim.

If someone concludes that it is a good idea to forcefully and/or otherwise illegally enter the residence of another person, regardless of whatever the underlying motivation is, that person cannot be judged as being rational, sane, or not a threat to the well being of the property owner. There is no reason that they should be extended anymore consideration, than a virus that has infiltrated the body.

It is for such reasons, that the people of the united states have no interest in even giving consideration on such an approach to the matter. They do not wish to be told that they must show greater consideration for those that would harm them for no reason, than they should for their own well being.

The saving of lives can also be achieved through the ending of certain lives. There are violent individuals in society who will murder others simply for looking at them wrong, or showing them disrespect in front of others. If these individuals are removed from society, the deaths of their potential victims can be effectively prevented. It is quite literally no different from using chemotherapy to treat cancer.

In order to save lives, one must accept that not all life is precious, and not all lives are worth saving.

 

Hopefully you won't have another Dunkirk or a more widespread event like the 2011 London riots where you might need them and don't have them.

You do have the advantage of living on a tiny island with cameras everywhere though. I guess that's an advantage.

 

Or a PM?