Do you carry your Handgun chambered? Why, Why not?

[only32owner]

Thanks alot moderetor Sir, for your advise.
And I am very happy to take it.
Now this is a WAR / Clash of TITANS.

Thankfully with my limited knowledge, I am safe with my all chember loaded revolver.

Regards.

[tirpassion]

Friends,

it is not a war . It is a discussion / debate. There can be people with a different opinion on the role of guns.If everybody talks for the motion is any debate /discussion interesting? Or is it enriching?

regards
tirpassion

[dr.jayakumar]

friends,
i agree with xl- target
when in a situation,the aggressor is not going to give you time,he will mostly bank on surprise.
next we are bound to fumble when desperate.i feel it is best to have it chambered,provided you know the gun properly.
regards

[goodboy_mentor]

To cite an example of operation of a machine (which if not manipulated carefully can be dangerous) in daily life which needs licence, I could think of Driving.

Regardless whether it needs a license or not, fact remains that a machine by itself is not going to jump up and create danger. Yes rules of safety have to be followed regardless whether a license is needed or not. A kitchen knife or cooking gas or a shaving blade do not need any license but safety rules have to be equally followed, if used irresponsibly or carelessly they are equally "dangerous".

If one is in a habit of flouting the safety rules (very common in India) or civic etiquettes out of I do not know what, the same person can not be taken for granted that he will strictly follow the gun safety rules. If this person has a gun on him, he can be a potential danger for others.

Probably you are generalizing the things and jumping to conclusions. As mentioned earlier that Rajpootana states before independence where not covered by Arms Act 1878 and today the Coorgs of Karnataka also are not covered by Arms Act 1959. Going by your reasoning, these two places would have some really extraordinary levels of accidents and crime because the persons in habit of "flouting rules" would do the same with guns in these regions also. Regardless of country, it needs to be understood that gun regulations are not for "safety" of common people but for entirely political reasons(the safety of the ruling establishment in power). Gun laws are just a smokescreen to cover the real political intentions. If you take some time to see and understand this documentary you will get an idea about real intentions behind gun "rules and regulations" http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14631

Self defense is a fundamental right. Nobody takes it away.

It is taken away. How? By clever and cunning rules and regulations, sometimes slow and steady progressively more stringent regulations over years and decades(refer the documentary mentioned above). Another example you have already mentioned that in France you cannot use firearm for self defense.

Otherwise, it does not go down well, frankly.

What are other "uses" of gun other than self defense? Sport, hunting, historical enacting. Isn't everything else already an act of crime? So where is the problem?

I will give you 3 examples of what you and I have been doing. Answering to go nowhere.

Exactly this is what I wanted to point out by my replies to your similar questions. The point is that the rights of people should not be infringed by law on merely some imaginary conjectures and perceptions. If the same is allowed it is no justice, no freedom or liberty but exactly the opposite.

Thanks again for enlightening me and ingraining another doubt in me. You (please do not take personally) shoot down and kill a known enemy, talk all lies and nonsense in court and prove that the act was committed purely for self defense. You further prove to the judiciary by corrupt means or powerful advocates hired with monetary power that the 'Enemy's family still poses threat for your life so as to get protection and finally go free and enjoy life.
If the criminal is that cunning, will you be less?

You are welcome. Thank you for participating in this interesting discussion. Just because of this possibility you want that all people should loose their God given inalienable right of self defense? Do you know that law for "attempt to murder" is the most abused law in this country. Are you saying that law for "attempt to murder" be taken off the statute books merely because it is being abused by some?

Who in India own guns or can own guns? The affluent upper class and in no way the poor class. The torture and exploitation on the lower class are countless even today. With more arms the risk of atrocities on the non privileged class will increase. The persons belonging to the 'Do you know who I am' clan belong mostly to the privileged class, thereby increasing the probability of danger after procuring more weapons. They do not care about civic etiquettes and care a damn to rules and regulations.

Who is controlling the State? If it is the lower class then they can easily control the upper class by using State power like in communist countries(and create a hell on earth like in other communist countries). So it is obvious that it is not the case. What do you propose? Disarm the upper class only? Is it a solution to the problem? Or arm only the lower class? Is it a solution to the problem? Remember equality has been guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If you read this thread carefully probably you will get the answer about the game of subterfuge that is going on since "independence" http://www.indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16477

The existence and evolution of a human being is a constant conflict between his inner self and him......That is a war I am waging since longtime.

You seem to be talking about the conflict of id, ego and super ego of Freudian model. The id is the set of uncoordinated "basic instinct" part of mind(no morality in it) like drive for survival, hunger, sex etc., the ego is the organized, realistic part of mind(balance between id and super ego) to deal with present social realities, super ego part of mind plays the moralizing role. Imbalance or disagreement between these three becomes a matter of "inner conflict".

I read your opinion about Prithviraj Chauhan and Akbar. Besides the topic, Akbar happens to be the historic character, I dislike most in the Mughal dynasty.

Would it not be reasonable to conclude that Prithviraj Chauhan had serious mental conflict between his id, ego and super ego? Else why would a person in normal state of mind let his attacker go free 14 times? Even dislike any good quality Akbar had merely because you "dislike" Akbar for some reason? Wouldn't that be unreasonable?

Please do not impose horror and fear on me. I prefer to gamble in your words, rest in peace with my conviction

I am not imposing any horror or fear, merely stating the facts as they are. It is a fact that 2+2 is always equal to 4, never equal 3 or 5. Convictions are not always based on facts.

I will sing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram...

never to take a life which I can not give back.

I note that both the above contradictory statements seem to have been given in the context of Sections 100 and 103 IPC. Which statement out of the two do I believe to be a true and sincere answer?

Was it a too hasty reply as your hasty judgement on me?

I restate again, no it was not a hasty reply or any kind of judgment.

[tirpassion]

You are converging to the point friend.

Reasonable and responsible use of a machine which can be dangerous for others. You are sure of yourself. I would believe. How can I be sure of everyone? Specially, those who are arrogant and agressive by nature? Who will assure me that a person will be responsible and stay away from his loaded ready to fire gun after consuming alcohol as he should do the same by staying away from the steering of his car in the same state?
Will you tell me that there are no such persons?

I am not to disarm the rich and arm the poor. You understand why I said earlier 'Do you want me to be a communist and ask you to look back?' You came back to the very same word.
I am for bridging the gap of social and economical inequality, educating people. I would add your word on fatalism. Thank our philosophy and lucky star that the majority of our fellow Indians are fatalists specially the poor class who accept their situation as it is. The day they become rationalists, they will revolt individually to begin with. Crime will increase. Compare Brazil and South Africa with us as emerging economies. Till now, we can still thank our successive governments to have managed this aspect well. Let us help our political parties and government to keep it up with the right dose of religion, caste etc.. Right?

BTW, the crime rate in India is very low compared to the western world. From all the crimes DOWRY related crimes, crimes in the name of CASTE, HONOUR KILLINGs are to be even removed for comparison because they are non existent in the western countries. For a country with 20 times less population, France has twice the crime than in India. I have selected a so called peaceful place to live and I do not find the need to carry a gun for self defense. For you, the French Govt has tactfully taken away my freedom and fundamental right to defend myself 'with a gun'. Is 'Self Defense with gun' a fundamental right or 'Self Defense' is a fundamental right? Anyway, the French Govt, has given me freedom and fundamental right to an excellent and efficient health service, a guarantee of a medical intervention with a doctor and nurse within 15 minutes even in a remote village at any time, it has given me the freedom and fundamental right to high quality free education to my children. I can sacrifice the freedom to carry gun on me for just these two reasons. I am more concerned with the imminent danger to my health which might come from I do not where rather than the danger from criminals. I am sure many would follow the same route if they had the choice. You understand why your remarks do not go down well if you criticize the Freedom and Fundamental rights in France as a whole.
But when talking about rights one should not forget the duties. I enjoy some rights and I have some duties also towards the state.

I am not drawing conclusions, I am asking questions. Do you compare a big city in India with Coorg? Where in your experience, have you seen more crimes in India? In a village or in a city? Where do you find the majority of the privileged class, in villages or in a city? Where do you find more possibilities of flouting driving rules, in a village or in a city? In any case, in a village there is none to even see and check if you flout rules. If there is none to check, who makes and enforces laws? How many crimes and accidents get reported in villages?

You are welcome. Thank you for participating in this interesting discussion. Just because of this possibility you want that all people should loose their God given inalienable right of self defense? Do you know that law for "attempt to murder" is the most abused law in this country. Are you saying that law for "attempt to murder" be taken off the statute books merely because it is being abused by some?

Nope, self defense yes, with gun yes under conditions of strict unbiased psychological tests, yes for very fast rather immediate delivery of license to applicants who pass the test. As an unarmed person, I want to feel safe in front of an armed person.
No for the paranoia, be it your version or mine.

You seem to be talking about the conflict of id, ego and super ego of Freudian model. The id is the set of uncoordinated basic animal instinctual part of mind(no morality in it) like drive for survival, hunger, sex etc., the ego is the organized, realistic part of mind(balance between id and super ego) to deal with present social realities, super ego part of mind plays the moralizing role. Imbalance or disagreement between these three becomes a matter of "inner conflict".

Goodness Lord! help me! It is too much for my intellectual level to understand. No, I am talking about Bhagbad and Gita. Freud was not born at that time, I think.

Good to know that your reply was not hasty. I believe in you.

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

I wanted to avoid answering point by point... but anyway.

Would it not be reasonable to conclude that Prithviraj Chauhan had serious mental conflict between his id, ego and super ego? Else why would a person in normal state of mind let his attacker go free 14 times? Even dislike any good quality Akbar had merely because you "dislike" Akbar for some reason? Wouldn't that be unreasonable?

I dislike the double faced character of Akbar. I prefer the straightforward Aurangzeb to Akbar knowing fully well that both of them were behind innumerable atrocities. Shaista Khan left Shivaji alive after defeating him. He admired his valour and let Shivaji go free. Aurangzeb got him in his hands and still did not kill him perhaps because Shivaji helped him to get Bijapur. But still Shivaji was an enemy of the Mughals. Who is right and who is wrong?

I am not imposing any horror or fear, merely stating the facts as they are. It is a fact that 2+2 is always equal to 4, never equal 3 or 5. Convictions are not always based on facts.

The image of blood coming out of a person in agony, killing in cold blood, atrocities etc oblige me to think of horror and to know a fact that somebody might kill if he feels that there is a danger to him, spreads fear in me.
No, my convictions are words of my conscience, my inner self.

I will sing Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram...

never to take a life which I can not give back.

I note that both the above contradictory statements seem to have been given in the context of Sections 100 and 103 IPC. Which statement out of the two do I believe to be a true and sincere answer?

The first one was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous question. So ignore it. I told you about my conviction, which is the second one and I repeat, I pray to the Almighty to help me to stick to my conviction which He has only induced in me.

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

Friends,

I would welcome other's contributions also to this discussion. Flying comments do not help to know one's views. In Indian languages there are beautiful terms to explain these one liners in between. But courtesy obliges me not to express...

Regards
tirpassion

[goodboy_mentor]

How can I be sure of everyone? Specially, those who are arrogant and agressive by nature? Who will assure me that a person will be responsible and stay away from his loaded ready to fire gun after consuming alcohol as he should do the same by staying away from the steering of his car in the same state?

Making "sure of everyone" does not help to produce results. Anyone can do anything anytime. The main question is are you willing to defend yourself? If yes then how? With bare hands? With most ineffective tools? With most effective tools?

Freedom and Liberty is guaranteed under our Constitution. Freedom and Liberty is not a risk free proposition. Slavery appears a comparatively risk free proposition to the ignorant, like a monkey in the zoo. His food, his health and his other necessities are taken care of by the zoo keeper. Only one thing the monkey is lacking, his freedom and liberty. Any day the zoo keeper may decide to do anything with him(including using him for cruel experiments or putting him to sleep for ever). So slavery is also not entirely risk free.

On the other hand a monkey in the jungle has no security of food, health or other necessities but he is having his freedom and liberty. Therefore the main question you need to ask, are you willing to trade your freedom and liberty for temporary and illusionary security?

I am for bridging the gap of social and economical inequality, educating people.

When and where in the history of civilization this goal has ever been achieved? What to do till this goal is achieved? And is it the magic pill to eliminate crime?

"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery." - Jean Jaqueas Rousseau

Thank our philosophy and lucky star that the majority of our fellow Indians are fatalists specially the poor class who accept their situation as it is.

So you are justifying the clever and cunning "philosophy" that misleads, brainwashes and keep the people fatalists?

Till now, we can still thank our successive governments to have managed this aspect well

Managing "well" by siphoning off the money of people into Swiss banks and creating vote banks? Managing "well" by brainwashing and misleading the people, especially about their inalienable rights? Is this the way any government(of the people, by the people, for the people) is expected to work?

Let us help our political parties and government to keep it up with the right dose of religion, caste etc.. Right?

Divide and rule exactly like our previous colonial masters before 1947. Is this the way any government(of the people, by the people, for the people) is expected to work? Or is it a fact that government is not of the people, by the people, for the people?

BTW, the crime rate in India is very low compared to the western world.

Is it truly low or just an assumption? Moreover what about silent crimes by the State by disarming the people? Do you know how many people are dying due to corruption with the State? Resulting in deaths of countless people by hunger, malnutrition and disease. Do add these statistics to the data of "crimes" and why remove other crimes like dowry death etc. crimes are crimes. Main question is, what is data going to prove about the inalienable rights of people, does data make the inalienable rights of people a trade-able commodity?

the French Govt has tactfully taken away my freedom and fundamental right to defend myself 'with a gun'.

And created safety for the criminals instead. So you are happy that when someone will be attacked violently, even though he has a gun, he cannot use it for his defense. On the other hand State can use the gun to defend itself. What kind of justice and equality it is? What kind of freedom and liberty is this where one is not even allowed to defend himself? It appears to be a pure lie and hypocrisy put forward under the cover of law.

Is 'Self Defense with gun' a fundamental right or 'Self Defense' is a fundamental right?

Self defense does not mean self defense with bare hands only. Self defense includes self defense with the best possible tools to neutralize the physical and numerical strength of the attackers, since self defense is not a contest or game of fair fight.

I can sacrifice the freedom to carry gun on me for just these two reasons.

So are you not a citizen who respects his inalienable rights but a trader of your inalienable rights. Willing to trade your freedom and liberty for some temporary security? Please refer the examples of monkey in the zoo given above in this context.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."-Benjamin Franklin

But when talking about rights one should not forget the duties. I enjoy some rights and I have some duties also towards the state.

Rights and duties are two sides of the same coin. If right exists, its corresponding duty also exists. How does self defense and right to keep and bear arms take away anyone's duty? Hence your statement is totally out of context to the discussion.

I am not drawing conclusions, I am asking questions. Do you compare a big city in India with Coorg?

Why have you left out Rajpootana states? Also if you take the example of Punjab, swords and other edged weapons are freely sold and it is customary for people to keep and bear them. Also gun culture is comparatively more as compared with some other states. Is it translating to more crime? I doubt. Recently there was report about Haryana and FBI study in this thread http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16891 More guns less crime is a well known fact. As I said earlier "gun control" is not about safety of citizens, it is about safety of criminals and similar elements of the State. In other words it is about victim control.

Nope, self defense yes, with gun yes under conditions of strict unbiased psychological tests, yes for very fast rather immediate delivery of license to applicants who pass the test.

Psychological tests do not ensure the end results. A clever and well trained person can easily fool these tests. On the other hand an honest person may fail these tests. And how do you account for lack of any extraordinary crime in like Rajpootana and Coorg, where nobody was/is subjected to any provisions of gun regulations? After Rajpootana states were brought under Arms Act 1959 did it bring down the crime levels? I don't think so. Can you show me any credible data across countries where gun control has brought down crime level? On the contrary I can show you plenty of data where gun control was followed by increase in crime including State sponsored crime.

As an unarmed person, I want to feel safe in front of an armed person.

Believe me this is exactly your paranoia speaking. If you think rationally and reasonably, answer my one question, how will you feel safe before two or more unarmed persons? Believe me two or more unarmed persons usually have enough physical and numerical strength(as well as statistical odds are in their favor) to finish you off within seconds. If you think in reasonable and logical manner, it is a perfect case for you to arm yourself with the best possible tools to neutralize their physical and numerical strength(as well as the statistical odds in their favor).

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."- Sigmund Freud

I dislike the double faced character of Akbar. I prefer the straightforward Aurangzeb to Akbar knowing fully well that both of them were behind innumerable atrocities. Shaista Khan left Shivaji alive after defeating him. He admired his valour and let Shivaji go free. Aurangzeb got him in his hands and still did not kill him perhaps because Shivaji helped him to get Bijapur. But still Shivaji was an enemy of the Mughals. Who is right and who is wrong?

Every politician is double faced. The point of discussion is not about liking or disliking Akbar as an individual but appreciating his decision to save himself from harm(self defense which we are discussing). If you study Aurangzeb in detail, he was no exception, he too had many faces. The point of discussion is your theory about tasers etc. and leaving your attacker alive and giving him another opportunity to repeat the attack on you. I amply illustrated the impracticality of it with the example of Prithviraj Chauhan. If you are bringing in example of Shaista Khan leaving Shivaji alive, then again if I take view from the position of Shaista Khan, I will say he was a fool exactly like Prithviraj Chauhan. "Admired" his valor is not a sign of reasonable and logical thinking but is sign of emotional thinking. He failed in doing the task assigned to him by Aurangzeb and further complicated the matters.

The image of blood coming out of a person in agony, killing in cold blood, atrocities etc oblige me to think of horror and to know a fact that somebody might kill if he feels that there is a danger to him, spreads fear in me.

Fear is not a solution, it is emotional reaction. How does it help any victim of crime? Surely it does not help any victim of crime if you disarm him and make him defenseless in the very first place. Solution lies in not disarming him so that the criminal/s does not get an advantage of physical or numerical strength. This is the inalienable right of any victim of crime, let us not take it away under some imaginary reasons.

The first one was a ridiculous reply to a ridiculous question.

By no stretch of imagination it was a ridiculous question. It was a serious question related with a serious matter i.e. in the context of Sections 100 and 103 IPC.

[prashantsingh]

Q:Why NOT?
A: An empty weapon is a useless thing.

[goodboy_mentor]

Absolutely, an empty weapon is an useless weapon and no point in carrying unloaded. At the same time I would like to say no to carrying cocked and locked if the safety lock is unreliable as mentioned in this thread about IOF .32 http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php ... 35#p159047

[Safarigent]

I dont have a handgun, but if i do, it will depend on the kind of mechanisms it has and the reliability of the safety system. Enough said about that already.
I have a very serious problem with tirpassions reasonings.
Maybe the distance away from india, has proven to have taken the edge off things when viewed from far away.
A few points:
In india, guns are cheap. They are cheap when you buy the indian made illegal ones, and those are the types which will be used 99 times out of 100. What do we do now? We just put the cart before the apple? No rich opressing the poor now? If a 'poor' man waves a gun in my face, should i then say the correct thing for a 'rich' man is not to draw my gun on him as they have it bad as it is? Or do i defend myself at that time? Or rather sit and review the policies of the governemnt at that time, and continue the same on my one way ticket up?
Actually to make generalizations like that is disrespectful to the ground realities. The li'il red boys running around in the gardens of orissa and jharkand arent exactly rich by any standards. There are examples to the contrary as well. Anyone, from any strata of society, can be a threat.
I live in an area in delhi where there is a lot of lawlessness, i cant afford anything else. What do i do? If the lawlessness affects my decision on where to live, does it not impinge on my right to freedom of movement? What to do now? Carry a swiss army knife to a gun fight?
What is applicable your side, you have to comply with, because thats what seperates the law abiding gentry from the ruffians. If someone is able to defend his life using a stick, he will. If he thinks he needs a gun, its his decision and his only.
If someone is prone to anger easily, they are a danger to people around them even without a gun, would you want to be around them if they were driving? Or walking a dog? Or working in the kitchen?
A dead body is a dead body. wealth, affluence, Race, religion, caste, creed etc carry no weight. If carrying a gun insures that you arent one, then carry one. If you are indifferent to death by all means carry on without one, but dont mind me carrying one.
After writing all this down, its now turn to talk of duties, the other side of the coin named fundamental.
It is our duty to carry our fire arms safely.
It is our duty to be proficient in handling of our weapons.
I dry practise with my shotgun to be a good skeet shooter, why shouldnt somebody wanting to edc his fire arm, to get his movements, balance and execution right?
It is our duty to bring such fire arms into use only as a last resort.
regardless of pipes being empty or holsters being at home, it is at the end of the day a personal choice dictated by laws, equipment choice and threat perception to a certain degree.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Both hitler and churchill had great power, one was responsible, one wasnt.

[tirpassion]

Excellent post Safarigent! Thanks for taking time to write down. I agree to most of your points. You must have noted somewhere that I am never against anyone carrying a gun on him. You cited the duties, I appreciate. My question is always the persons who might not fulfill the duties.

I will explain myself a bit more in the following.

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

Hello goodboy mentor,

I am for bridging the gap of social and economical inequality, educating people.

When and where in the history of civilization this goal has ever been achieved? What to do till this goal is achieved? And is it the magic pill to eliminate crime?

For me bridging a gap is laying a bridge on two banks. Excuse me if I have misled you. I know that two banks can never be merged together, alas! But with efforts, one can build bridges to facilitate the passage.

Thank our philosophy and lucky star that the majority of our fellow Indians are fatalists specially the poor class who accept their situation as it is.

So you are justifying the clever and cunning "philosophy" that misleads, brainwashes and keep the people fatalists?

Till now, we can still thank our successive governments to have managed this aspect well

Managing "well" by siphoning off the money of people into Swiss banks and creating vote banks? Managing "well" by brainwashing and misleading the people, especially about their inalienable rights? Is this the way any government(of the people, by the people, for the people) is expected to work?

Let us help our political parties and government to keep it up with the right dose of religion, caste etc.. Right?

Divide and rule exactly like our previous colonial masters before 1947. Is this the way any government(of the people, by the people, for the people) is expected to work? Or is it a fact that government is not of the people, by the people, for the people?

You are too intelligent and knowledgeable not to understand the pun in my statements.

You are a victim when faced with imminent danger as mentioned in Sections 100 and 103 IPC. Will you start doing a research on reasons behind criminal and his crime or take immediate steps as allowed by these Sections to defend yourself?

The question I found ridiculous was this. Your question starts from Will you... See, a new born baby also defends himself when he feels an aggression. I will obviously defend myself even with my teeth and claws.

I understand your ideology of liberty and freedom in the monkey story. There is a similar one with a skinny dog who meets a healthy and chained one. In broader terms look beyond, are you really free? Do not you have any invisible shackles around you? Please do not give any hasty reply. You cited Rousseau. So I expect you to think philosophically. As you said rightly, you can be really free if you are a monkey in the jungle.

Over 1100 Jews bought by Oskar Schindler chose the slavery. Some of them who are still alive and their descendants still thank Schindler and will continue to do so. It may be recalled that he did so in the beginning, purely for his personal interest of business. I highlight also that Oskar Schindler was the only member of the Nazi party to have officially visited Israel and honoured by the Israeli Govt.
You can also say that those Jews chose the best possible option for self defense.

Look my friend, it is not the question of only ideology nor only rationality. But again rationality and ideology are like water and oil who do not mix. You need to put an extra physical effort or say energy to make an emulsion of oil and water. Then again, the emulsion has to be handled carefully otherwise it will most likely break. So you put some stabilizers to it. The stabilizers bond the water and oil molecules together and give a long lasting emulsion. So a lot of careful operations need to be carried out to achieve this. Please read between the lines. Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Akbar, Shaista Khan, Aurangzeb, Shivaji, trader of liberty etc are all there. The bridge I talked about earlier is the bond created by the stabilizer.

You talked about rationality (constitution, IPC, rights, acts, stopping enemy should, must etc. etc. ) but came back to the ideology also with Rousseau. So you are also talking of an emulsion. So where are we different?

The sentenced I typed was

For you, the French Govt has tactfully taken away my freedom and fundamental right to defend myself 'with a gun'. Is 'Self Defense with gun' a fundamental right or 'Self Defense' is a fundamental right?

you quoted the same without the 'For you' part

the French Govt has tactfully taken away my freedom and fundamental right to defend myself 'with a gun'.

Do they carry the same meaning? Please do not distort meanings. I repeat that the right to self defense is a fundamental right but not with the instrument of your choice. I do not see where an apocalyptic violation was made to my fundamental rights as a whole.

I wish not go on more with the same arguments because there will be no end to it. More guns = Less crime is logical in a context. I have said that in that very topic. Globally, the crime rate has increased, the economic inequality gap too. You can also relate them if you really wish and say Less economic gap = Less Crime in a democracy if Crime is the only concern. Otherwise, some people cry Shariat laws = Less crime. No, I do not want it neither am I for it. Please do not elaborate.

If you are defending freedom and fundamental rights as a whole (that is what I understood), right to self defense with the equipment of your choice which you are vouching for, is not the only right to defend. There are more fundamental rights which are violated (as you have cited earlier) since long and they need immediate attention. Right to property has been removed from the fundamental rights very carefully. Right to work and right to health will also help our population immensely. May be you are doing it. But I had an impression that the only concern is Gun Rights.

Enjoy!

best regards
tirpassion

[tirpassion]

Hello xltarget

A gun is a tool and will not, without human intervention, jump up and shoot someone.

You are right, it should not. But why do the manufacturers add manual and mechanical safety devices to it?

By the way, I found that in the US (www.Handgunlaw.us) there is effectively a point which says 'Never rely on any mechanical device for safety'. Some put that in the 12 golden rules of gun safety.

best regards
tirpassion

[xl_target]

Hello xltarget

A gun is a tool and will not, without human intervention, jump up and shoot someone.

You are right, it should not. But why do the manufacturers add manual and mechanical safety devices to it?

...because people can't keep their booger hooks off the bang switch.

By the way, I found that in the US (http://www.Handgunlaw.us) there is effectively a point which says 'Never rely on any mechanical device for safety'. Some put that in the 12 golden rules of gun safety.

If you follow the four rules that I enumerated, you don't need a bunch of additional ones.