Quote Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus View Post
That might be theoretically possible, I suppose. But only if it was a key-lock safe, not tumblers, dials, or the like.

Regardless, unless you're fully aware of a burglar's intent before he enters the house, you're still too late. How many seconds does it take you to walk from one room to the other, after all?
Well, most houses have the bedrooms as far away from the access as possible. Assuming you're all asleep, you should have several minutes to get between an intruder and your family. You should also have an alram, if your are afraid enough to buy a gun. Thsat will increase your warning time considerably.

Again, that's assuming that you detect him while he is outside, which is rare because when a person is outside you don't start with the assumption that he must intend to break in.
Alarm.

Furthermore, I don't want to kill someone over a TV either. You seem to assume that possession of a firearm = instant death to burglars.

On the contrary, often burglars freeze. I sure would.

I mean, think of it this way:

If a burglar comes in, and he really IS only after the TV, as you say, then as soon as he is confronted and threatened with lethal force, he will do a very quick risk assessment in his head. He will realize quite quickly that nothing that he came for is worth even the remotest possibility of death. So he will be compliant.

If, on the other hand, a burglar actually gives a homeowner a reason to shoot him after being confronted, that probably means that said burglar had quite a bit more invested in it. He could be a murderer, kidnapper, or rapist, for instance.

The reason I say that is because, for a burglar to attack an armed homeowner, he is either

a:) extremely foolhardy; nay, raving mad
b:) has no other choice (that is, the nature of his crime is such that arrest is not an option in his mind)
C:) ARMED

And if a criminal is armed, that tells me that either he merely intends to wave it around to scare people, or he has much more deadly intentions in mind. In the case of home invasion, I'd say the latter.
If you have agun, and he has a gun, someone is going to get shot. I'm not going to get into any kind of TV standoff. He's getting double tapped, centre of mass.

This is extremely unfortunate, and we have here been discussing the importance of firearms education. And it is a real issue.

I'd say the biggest issue is the first one you mentioned: small children making bizarre mistakes. As far as teenage suicide goes, that is by no means the fault of the gun. Teens are sufficiently old that they are quite capable of determining consequences, as well as circumventing safety measures.
Firearms should be under lock and key. The military keeps it's firearms under lock and key, so does the police, so do shooting clubs. Homeowners should be no less responsible. There is NO reason not to have a locked gun cabinet and seperate magazine.

That it does. And the next clause says that, as the right to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, the right of the people to bear arms shall LIKEWISE not be infringed.

It's a compound sentence, not a run-on. ;)
Likewise is an interesting word. It means, "in the same manner". So, a well regulated militia made up of well regulated personal ownership.

Very true, but a deficit in responsibility cannot be solved through increased legislation upon or removal of said right.
I see no reason not to legislate the responsibility alongside the right. The right is legislated for, after all.

As CR pointed out, the reason that we don't accept the idea is because of the politics involved and where it could lead.

It's a very similar idea with free speech. There are a good many people in this country who, by all reason, should be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, to put it bluntly.

Similarly, there are many people who are not qualified to vote and who, by doing so, pollute and distort the system.

But the fact is that Those people MUST retain their right to free speech and they MUST be allowed to vote!

Why is that? I'll tell you. Because, even though some people maybe shouldn't vote, if you create a means to determine WHO exactly is qualified, you create a massive danger to democracy.

Who decides whether people are qualified to vote or not?

See what I'm saying? It would not be hard for me to find a reason to broadly disqualify a large group of people who, by coincidence happen to disagree with my political views.

And I'm not saying that the instant that mandatory voting screenings are instituted, this will happen. I'm saying that all human behavior has a trend, and it isn't good in this case.

It would happen eventually.

So that is the fear behind gun registration/qualification. And a legitimate one too, I think.
I do appreciate the fear. Though it's worth remembering that the US army can quite easily role over most of your armer home owners.

Let me be very specific about what I am suggesting here. A very FUNDAMENTAL test, designed by your military, which would confirm an essential competancy. This would include complete military drills, field stripping and cleaning, and a basic understanding of safety. Rather than a ban on 5.56 NATO rifles, simply subject any private owner to the same basic test as a soldier in your army.

A well regulated militia needs to actually know how to use it's weapons. To be honest, I get the impression that a lot of Americans don't have basic skills, given that they seem to leave loaded guns lying around.

I must say sir how very kind it is of you to say so. Whilst in all this time you have kept quite excellent composure.

, if I may.
Well, they're only guns. They're not that exciting, to be honest.