G. Pare: Something to think about

I hear a lot about people who are against gun control and who feel that they need guns to protect themselves against intruders. How about this scenario:

An intruder breaks into your house, points a gun at you and demands money. You try to reach for your gun. Remember, you are a law-abiding citizen who may have never shot another person. The gunman, on the other hand, may have shot someone before and will not hesitate to shoot. You, on the other hand, may be a little hesitant about taking someone's life.

A safer bet might just be to give the intruder what he wants and let him leave, then call the police.

Your life is worth more than a few bucks.

Gerald Pare, Poland

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Let's be clear

The right to protect your life is an inherent right that proceeds the formation of the US Government and the 2nd Amendment or any other government. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.
The claim being made by the NRA and the most extreme members of the gun rights fraternity is that the 2nd Amendment demands that the civilian population of the US has the right to arm itself equal to or greater than police and military so that that population may overthrow the duly elected republican government by force. Self-defense is a smoke screen.
Since the purpose of the US Constitution was to provide for the national defense against foreign invaders and domestic insurrections; to regulate inter-state trade, and to make the US credit worthy; such an interpretation is absurd.
No one's 2nd Amendment rights are in anyway infringed by licensing or registration neither of which has been proposed and even much less by universal background checks, responsibilities of gun owners, or any other real proposals so far presented.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Here is another scenario that

Here is another scenario that I have not seen talked about. I live in an apartment building with thin walls. Let's say my neighbor owns a gun and is cleaning it...it accidentally goes off (like I said ...accidentally) and the bullet goes through the wall and hits one of my children.....i chose not to own a gun....so what about my rights that caused my child to be hurt (or even killed)...

MARK GRAVE's picture

Unfortunately, your rights

Unfortunately, your rights have not been violated until someone is injured.

Do you take away the right of someone to consume alcohol or drive a car just because someone may get drunk and drive through someone’s first floor apartment?

These type of “what if” arguments are simply based on fear and cannot be used as a cogent argument.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Gerald, that is certainly one

Gerald, that is certainly one scenario. Here is another:

Someone is trying to kick in my front door. It takes them several kicks to break open the door. The sound alerts me; I grab my loaded shotgun and draw a bead on the door. When they enter, they are face to face with my 12 gauge.
They:
1. Runaway, or
2. Rush me, and I pull the trigger.

See, we can play these games all day. The 2nd amendment gives the individual the right to protect their safety as they see fit. Some will be successful, some will not, but that is the price of freedom.

Lastly, let us modify your scenario; you are force to watch your daughter get raped after you give the gunman your money. The gunman as raped many women before, so he knows how to do it. Do you still want to stick to your beliefs, or will you protect your daughter with your life if necessary.

Well, what type of man are you?

AL PELLETIER's picture

OK, Mark

Seeings you said "12 gauge" I have to agree with you. Had you said AR-15 with a 30 round clip I would not. I simply think a 12 gauge shot gun with double ott buckshot is far better home protection then an AR-15. The AR-15 is far better for mass killings because that's what their made for.
And living out in the sticks I could not imagine not having a weapon for protecting my home, my property and my life. Having had military training and having served in war, rolling over and playing dead is not an option.

Andrew Jones's picture

00 buckshot will rip apart

00 buckshot will rip apart drywall and really ruin the day of someone on the other side, whereas a .223 round loses a lot of it's power punching through walls. The shotgun clearly has better stopping power while an AR-15 variant is less likely to kill an innocent getting hit through a wall.

AL PELLETIER's picture

HUH?

I guess your not too up to date on arms and armament. Some .223 caliber projectile not only have armor piercing ability but a muzzle velocity velocity that chucks the bullet at such an incredible speed that a .223 power point explodes on contact with the target.
Put up 10 sheets of drywall and I'll put my money on the .223 armor piercing bullets penetration power over the buckshot anytime.

Andrew Jones's picture

I can't imagine too many

I can't imagine too many people are packing penetration or +p rounds instead of FMJ/JHP in their sporting rifles. That's like saying that some shotgun shells explode on contact because somebody is using "dragon's breath" shotshells. The point is that an AR-15 is a viable home defense weapon and has advantages over a shotgun; calling it a "mass-killing tool" is ignorant, and just plain disappointing to hear from someone who has claimed to have served.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Let’s use some

Let’s use some science.

Momentum = mass * velocity.

Typical 00 pellet – 53 gr. x 1260 fps
Typical .223 – 55 gr. x 3120 fps

A typical .223 round has more momentum than a 00 pellet says the science.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Note that bullets are

Note that bullets are measured in weight, not mass; weight is proportional mass * gravity and gravity is constant for both, so I simply ignore it above.

MARK GRAVE's picture

As you say, the AR-15 is a

As you say, the AR-15 is a killing machine, yet it kills almost as many people per year as an automobile.

An automobile is a product that is designed to be as safe as possible.

Now which product is a failure?

Okay, after that pithy comment, I still stand for an individual’s right to own an AR-15 and as many 100 round clips as they can afford to buy.

Let freedom ring to the sound of AR-15's and the like.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Kind of a no brainer

A car is made for transportation, a gun is made to hunt with, target practice with and kill with. There is a difference.

Zack Lenhert's picture

Gravel, weren't you claiming

Gravel, weren't you claiming last week that the gun-automobile analogy is bogus? Funny you still use it when it works for your argument.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Still is bogus, what makes

Still is bogus, what makes you think I changed my mind.

A product that is designed and regulated for safety kills just as many as a product designed to kill. Perhaps more attention should be given to the automobile than the gun.

Let freedom ring like the brass from an AR-15 hitting the pavement.

AL PELLETIER's picture

How about hitting the floor at Sandy Hook School?

"Let freedom ring like brass from an AR-15 hitting the pavement".
You just proved you haven't changed, your just as sick as ever!

MARK GRAVE's picture

Only for your benefit. What

Only for your benefit. What else would you have to complain about?

Bob Woodbury's picture

These mass murderers...

...don't know what they're missing. They should be running over people. I wonder why they don't.

Mark Wrenn's picture

there you have it

"Well, what type of man are you?" And there you have it folks. You're not a man without your prosthetic manhood.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Would you die to protect your

Would you die to protect your family?

I would, Al would.

Are you the type of individual who would lay down his or her life to protect your family, or would you just lie down?

That question has nothing to do about manhood; it has everything to do about sacrifice, about selfishness, and survival.

Zack Lenhert's picture

The premise that someone

The premise that someone needs a gun to protect their family is false. Statistics show that keeping a firearm in a household increases the risk of a firearm injury or death to members of that home.

What kind of individual would knowingly increase the risk to their family?

AL PELLETIER's picture

Zack

I'm really in the middle of the road on this one. To protect my home, property, family and my life I would prefer to bring a gun to the gun fight then a hand shake. Keeping the guns under lock and key and the car keys in the same safe sounds like a good solution.

MARK GRAVE's picture

We can keep you even safer of

We can keep you even safer of we lock you in a padded room.

MARK GRAVE's picture

The same applies to a ladder.

The same applies to a ladder. If you don’t have a ladder in the home, then your risk of injury do to a fall is less.

Yet people manage to own ladders without getting injured – same goes for the gun.

I respect your freedom to not own a gun. Now allow others the freedom to own one. That is what freedom is all about.

Moreover, why should I give a damn if you are incompetent and injure your family – nature will weed out those individuals over time.

Zack Lenhert's picture

" why should I give a damn if

" why should I give a damn if you are incompetent and injure your family – nature will weed out those individuals over time."

Ahhhh... the compassion of Libertarians. You seemed to care when questioning the machismo of others.

You should care because they are your neighbors, your coworkers, your uncles and aunts and nephews and nieces. You should care because innocent children kill themselves accidentally with firearms all the time. You should care because one of those children could be the next "Ronald Reagan" or cure cancer. You should care because we are all stuck on this little blue planet together.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Life is a risk, and we all

Life is a risk, and we all die of one thing or another. Some people have trouble reconciling their immortality.

Just be a risk exists, does not mean you have to eliminate freedoms of others. Darwin is alive and well within humanity. Always was, always will be. Sorry you fear life so much.

"You seemed to care when questioning the machismo of others."

I was clear on what I said. Deal with and quite lying.

Bob Woodbury's picture

Guess you should be...

...defending your family with a ladder.

MARK GRAVE's picture

It’s okay, I know you’re

It’s okay, I know you’re confused.

Zack Lenhert's picture

I guess I didn't realize that

I guess I didn't realize that ladders were purposefully designed to injure and kill.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...