Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
ok leave the house with my entire family
Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops
.....
Much easier to shoot him.
Likely as soon as he realized he was caught he'd bail. If he's violent enough to try something, then you shoot him.
I think you should be able to say that you *tried* to retreat though.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.
My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.
Your understanding is misplaced. 'if you cannot afford an attorney' is the key phrase. Public defenders are crap and plea bargain your case not defend it. you're going to pay the bucks.
Well, that is an example of the consequences of neglect of public services, but that is another story.
I know public defenders who are dedicated and believe in the ideals of what they're doing.
That is beside the point though. Its a matter of what is *right*
And what is right is not putting a terrible burden on the innocent, but on the BG.
here's what one class told me to do.
*retreat with family to safe room (fancy term for closet or other place with one entrance)
*have other call police or you do so. Leave line open.
*shout out "The police have been called. I have a firearm and am in fear for my life. I will use it."
*if BG enters space, empty your clip in him.
here's what another class told me.
*If you're at a stop sign and someone looks at you funny, cap 'em. Then drag em into your house. Call the cops and tell 'em he was coming right for you. Be sure to hide all your beers and put on your best wife beater T shirt.
ok maybe not, but thats what your fear seems to be.
Frazzled wrote:And what is right is not putting a terrible burden on the innocent, but on the BG.
here's what one class told me to do.
*retreat with family to safe room (fancy term for closet or other place with one entrance)
*have other call police or you do so. Leave line open.
*shout out "The police have been called. I have a firearm and am in fear for my life. I will use it."
*if BG enters space, empty your clip in him.
here's what another class told me.
*If you're at a stop sign and someone looks at you funny, cap 'em. Then drag em into your house. Call the cops and tell 'em he was coming right for you. Be sure to hide all your beers and put on your best wife beater T shirt.
ok maybe not, but thats what your fear seems to be.
That seems an entirely reasonable reaction. But that isn't what I understand the castle doctrine concept to mean. My understanding is that technically you can shoot someone who is in your house if they don't have permission to be there.
You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
I'm not against self defense, it just bothers me that the law can establish a *right* to use force with trespassing as the sole justification. That's a concept that I'm uncomfortable with that could lead to all manner of mischief being protected by law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:The problem is
When he hears "I have called the police and am in fear of my life and have a firearm"
If he is a psychopath he empties the entire clip into the close door her heard that come out of....
Interior doors in houses will not stop anything bigger then a 22 LR
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it. This also goes for people who want to create gun bans on the basis of all these supposed armed maniacs running around.
Ultimately it isn't the intent, but I'm concerned about issues concerning due process of law and public safety. Did we always have these laws? Why change things that are more or less working already.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it. This also goes for people who want to create gun bans on the basis of all these supposed armed maniacs running around.
Ultimately it isn't the intent, but I'm concerned about issues concerning due process of law and public safety. Did we always have these laws? Why change things that are more or less working already.
PArt of it like i said is protection of property. I would have to guess most of the time you dont get your stuff back. At least three of my friends who were robbed didnt. You want to steel my things, you run the risk of being shot.
Grignard wrote:
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
How do you have any idea if the guy that just woke you up at 2 am is armed? 'Excuse me- do you have a gun?' Seriously..... if someone is in your house at night riffling through your stuff with a flashlight- you have NO IDEA if they are armed.
People do not accidentally break into houses- there are several conscious decisions involved. Choosing the neighborhood. Choosing the house. Choosing where to break in. Choosing to break in.
Once all those choices have been made- if they make the mistake of choosing my house and waking me up- Im going to provide them with a simple illustration in how to clearly realize they have made a mistake.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers. I dont want to ever have to shoot someone in my house. Legal ramifications aside I dont want to clean up the mess, or spend a night in jail while the forensics teams validate what happened.
But Im not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to do me or the people in my home any harm.
It is THEIR choice to break into peoples homes and put themselves and the occupants in danger. They made the choice- they have to deal with the consequences of that.
Grignard wrote:
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
How do you have any idea if the guy that just woke you up at 2 am is armed? 'Excuse me- do you have a gun?' Seriously..... if someone is in your house at night riffling through your stuff with a flashlight- you have NO IDEA if they are armed.
People do not accidentally break into houses- there are several conscious decisions involved. Choosing the neighborhood. Choosing the house. Choosing where to break in. Choosing to break in.
Once all those choices have been made- if they make the mistake of choosing my house and waking me up- Im going to provide them with a simple illustration in how to clearly realize they have made a mistake.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers. I dont want to ever have to shoot someone in my house. Legal ramifications aside I dont want to clean up the mess, or spend a night in jail while the forensics teams validate what happened.
But Im not going to give them the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to do me or the people in my home any harm.
It is THEIR choice to break into peoples homes and put themselves and the occupants in danger. They made the choice- they have to deal with the consequences of that.
Again, I've already noted that in my opinion that situation completely justifies force. Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home. It needs to go to court and the situation has to be investigated. How are we supposed to know what exactly occurred. The fact remains that in the situation, someone is dead. When that occurs, you should have to explain yourself, no matter how justified you feel you are.
ShivanAngel wrote:There are enough psychopaths out there for me to not risk it...
Also if your in a closet or small bathroom you cant not stand in front of the door.
It doesnt only go to self defense, but defense of property. I work hard for my things, my home, and providing for my family. I have no moral issue putting a bullet into you if you try to take it.
We all work hard, which is why we have a criminal justice system. Maybe I'm living in ignorant bliss, but I just don't feel like there are that many people in my area that are that insane. It could happen, but the odds are against it.
Since I live in a world where these things take place, I like having a firearm in the house. I also like the idea that when I'm not around my wife has a firearm in the house. Yes, the odds of being the victim of this type of crime are slim. I'm sure that's comforting if it happens to you.
As a side note, I really hope that New Hampshire will adopt Drawing and Quartering as their method of Capital Punishment before these animals are sentenced.
One can go on in an endless debate about power and fear when it comes to guns, but I think it misses the point.
Guns are like cigarettes - they are both dangerous products which people enjoy the use of. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, opium, caffeine, trans-fats, the list goes on and on and on of things that are simultaneously dangerous and fun. I mean, given speeding laws basically everywhere I'd ever consider driving a car, why do they even bother building cars that go faster than 80 MPH? Because it's fun to drive fast, regardless of the risks.
Different cultures are variously tolerant or averse when it comes to risk with regards to different products and activities. Is worrying about the dangers of guns silly when you're running a 20,000 calorie a day diet? Sure, but every culture has their own goofy way of handling risk (I mean, just look at Islam - martyrdom and jihad are within "acceptable" levels of risk while eating pork and drinking alcohol are considered too risky to be partaken by the good muslim).
Guns are awesome. They are also dangerous. Americans, in general, have a culture of focusing on the awesome at the expense of the risk, and guns are no exception. That and we have guns built into our culture through our political world reinforcing it. That and we have a huge area: population ratio, which means we can have a lot more fun with things like driving fast and blowing stuff up without chronically bothering the neighbors.
The rest, honestly, is rather trivial. I mean, with regards to crime, what LAW banning guns is going to stop a CRIMINAL? I guess if you really believe that the prime motivator of crime is opportunity, then limiting opportunity makes sense, but this belief is not borne out by empirical evidence (Canada has a higher gun ownership per capita than the US, but a much lower crime rate, for example).
As for being cavalier about the value of life with regards to guns, don't tell me you've never watched a war movie before...
The sound of a 12 gauge pump shotgun being racked is transcends language barriers.
This is actually a very sound tactic. There's no mistaking the sound of a shotgun slide, and there's no confusion about what a tube of 00 buckshot will do to you. You can take a couple 9mms and be back on your feet in a couple days. A 12g takes parts of you off.
When (my dad) boguht my rifle, he had to fill out some paper work and we waited about half an hour before they sold it to us.
This is actually the standard formula. You fill out a background check, the gun store calls the agency in charge of the check, they verify that you're good to go, and you leave with the weapon.
I actually got to a point with this process where I had the form, which is basically a series of true/false questions, memorized. If I recall, it was just true, all false, then the last true. But now I'm married and have kids, so I don't buy guns like I used to.
I think if I were overly worried about my safety or those in my household, I think I'd put my time, energy and money into formulating some kind of escape plan. The way I figure most burglars are just that, burglars. The number of people who break into random homes with the intent of killing,raping or torturing the inhabitants is rather limited. Chances are if a criminal is in my home, they are after my stuff not my life. Chances are pretty damn good that if I have a way out the scene that isn't going to draw attention, nobody going to get hurt.
On the other hand, if I go at the dink with a gun and draw attention to that fact either by announcing it or shooting and missing or simply failing to totally disable them, I've escalating the situation.
They'll know their life is in danger and react accordingly. I have a weapon, but so might they. I don't like the idea of a course of action that has a nonzero chance of breaking out into an armed struggle. That certainly can't be safe for anyone in the burglar or otherwise.
A weapon is also a pretty big accident hazard, even a single mistake or absent-minded breech of proper handling can lead to really bad times.
I guess when it comes down to flight or fight with a threat that probably isn't too intent on giving chase, I'd rather try to make flight my default option. He runs away lives to run away another day.
Stormrider wrote:"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."
If someone is in my house, I wont go: "Gee, I'm sorry you had a gak childhood and are now committing crime to exist, I understand why you are stealing my stuff" bs! I will give them one chance to surrender and lay on the floor. If they decide that they will test my trigger finger it's too late for them.
My house was broken into 3 times in a 5 week span in October and November last year. The perpetrators were both meth addicts and one of them is still on the loose. They had weapons with them too, a prybar, a pellet psitol and a hunting slingshot. I don't care if they are outgunned, they broke the law, they pay the price for breaking in to my house. I live in SW Missouri so I know about real problems with meth, we're the capital of the country for it.
Did you shoot them?
Everytime they broke in (or tried to), no one was home. The second time, we had contractors who were working on the house. The third time, the guy who was caught, tried to go it alone. Our neighbor called the cops, the neighborhood was sealed off and he had nowhere to go.
We'll be testifying against him in June.
jp400 wrote:This just in.... giant worm invades Frazzled's house. More at 11.
**WARNING** Slight language... but funny as hell
Pretty accurate, but they came in from the right side, and Tbone leaped on its back with a tiny cowboy hat and rode that puppy rodeo style until it gave up the ghost. Its a thing he does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:The problem is
When he hears "I have called the police and am in fear of my life and have a firearm"
If he is a psychopath he empties the entire clip into the close door her heard that come out of....
Interior doors in houses will not stop anything bigger then a 22 LR
No no that occurs if he's down the hallway, downstair etc. All the important people are in the closet. If he's in LOS you fire warning shots until he gets the hint and quits twitching.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
Frazzled wrote:You're forgetting the important part-fear of death or harm. the Castle doctrine provides a legal presumption of that. If barney the dinosaur bclimbs in you can't just cap him. ok you could, and would get a medal, but i digress.
But how exactly are you in fear of death or harm if you are confronting an unarmed intruder with a weapon.
YOU HAVE NO CLUE HE'S UNARMED UNTIL THE POLICE HAVE HIM IN THE BACK OF THE SQUAD CAR.
You assume so many things its screamingly not funny and you truly should never have a firearm. You'll make the wrong move and be dead. Dear God i pray you're never on a jury.
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
Grignard wrote: Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home.
I don't think the law Frazzled quoted supports that right. The criteria is a forced entry, and a reasonable fear of your life or your family. Forced entry means they have defeated a deadbolt, broken a window, or in some other way made it clear that they are getting into your house regardless of what countermeasures you have in place. To me, and many of the defenders of lethal force home defense, that action is proof of malicious intent.
So now we have an individual with malicious intent on the loose in the occupied home. If this occurs, I will be afraid for my life and those of my family. It's just like seeing an obviously drunk driver on the road. They've done something illegal that makes them dangerous to you. If you can, you avoid them. Houses, however, are significantly less mobile than cars. Getting your family away from danger is, at best, impractical and often impossible in a home invasion scenario. That's what this law should be about. Protection for you and your family in case you do find yourself in a situation where you have to kill an intruder in your home. It is not about a right to kill people in your house. You need to be a dictator, evil boss, or the lord of a small island nation to go about killing your houseguests.
Eh, here's a scenario- you sleep on one side of the house, your children sleep on the other. Between you is the kitchen and the living room. You have a gun (or cricket bat) on or near the nightstand. There is a window in your bedroom leading to the outside (we'll assume ground floor). You hear the crash of a window from between you and the children's room. What will you do?
That is the current set up for my house, which undoubtedly colors my view of the possible options if someone broke into my house. I think the more members in your family, the less viable retreat is as an option and the greater threat the unknown home invader poses. This extends beyond the inital gun situation, you might decide to battle to protect your family with a baseball bat or crowbar, or whatever happens to be close to hand- though if you use one of those ridiculous leg lamps, keep that detail to yourself! A gun tends to polarize the discussion because it is more likely to kill the individual it is used on than a bat or improvised bludgeon.
Frazzled wrote:
You assume so many things its screamingly not funny and you truly should never have a firearm. You'll make the wrong move and be dead. Dear God i pray you're never on a jury.
Since when did you become senator Brady, Fraz? I can't read over text the tone of that statement, but if you're serious I think you're being a bit of a hypocrite saying who should own a gun or not. And I'd be who you'd want on a jury, because I'm going to break my neck in order to be as fair as possible.
How many stone cold psychopaths are there out there? Are you going to stand in front of the door?
Frazzled wrote:
I've personally known several actually.
I don't think we're disagreeing in terms of substance, but rather the wording and intent of law.
Like I said, if I'm armed and someone I don't know is in my house in the middle of the night, there is a good chance they're getting shot, armed or not. I'm probably going to be terrified and I would be justified in shooting the guy on the basis of that fear alone.
If, in the scenario I presented, you suprise some kid that thinks he's a baller who is going through your crap, and I already have the gun on him, I'm more likely to tell him to get out of my house before he gets shot. More likely the shooting I'd be doing would be to fire my size 10 foot into his ass, in the general direction of the curb.
I think if we were armed in a true home invasion scenario, I don't think you or I would react any differently. What I disagree with is how the law is supposed to handle that. I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a *right* to shoot someone in your house just because of entry. I'm not saying you *shouldn't*, but it should not be a *right*. I think if you kill someone there has to be an investigation into what exactly happened, and you're going to have to answer some pointed questions. Surely you could see how a right to kill someone simply because they've entered your property could be abused.
Part of the family I grew up with pretty much carried guns wherever they went, and had pulled firearms on people more than once. Had someone really tried to harm them on their property, they'd be deader than a doornail. I'm convinced they wouldn't nail some dumb kid in the back though, although by the time they got done busting his jaw, he might regret being a punk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:
Grignard wrote: Again, what I have a problem with is defining that you have a *right* to kill someone in your home simply because they are in your home.
I don't think the law Frazzled quoted supports that right. The criteria is a forced entry, and a reasonable fear of your life or your family. Forced entry means they have defeated a deadbolt, broken a window, or in some other way made it clear that they are getting into your house regardless of what countermeasures you have in place. To me, and many of the defenders of lethal force home defense, that action is proof of malicious intent.
So now we have an individual with malicious intent on the loose in the occupied home. If this occurs, I will be afraid for my life and those of my family. It's just like seeing an obviously drunk driver on the road. They've done something illegal that makes them dangerous to you. If you can, you avoid them. Houses, however, are significantly less mobile than cars. Getting your family away from danger is, at best, impractical and often impossible in a home invasion scenario. That's what this law should be about. Protection for you and your family in case you do find yourself in a situation where you have to kill an intruder in your home. It is not about a right to kill people in your house. You need to be a dictator, evil boss, or the lord of a small island nation to go about killing your houseguests.
Eh, here's a scenario- you sleep on one side of the house, your children sleep on the other. Between you is the kitchen and the living room. You have a gun (or cricket bat) on or near the nightstand. There is a window in your bedroom leading to the outside (we'll assume ground floor). You hear the crash of a window from between you and the children's room. What will you do?
That is the current set up for my house, which undoubtedly colors my view of the possible options if someone broke into my house. I think the more members in your family, the less viable retreat is as an option and the greater threat the unknown home invader poses. This extends beyond the inital gun situation, you might decide to battle to protect your family with a baseball bat or crowbar, or whatever happens to be close to hand- though if you use one of those ridiculous leg lamps, keep that detail to yourself! A gun tends to polarize the discussion because it is more likely to kill the individual it is used on than a bat or improvised bludgeon.
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.
Oh wow... so you did understand that they had already broken into yourr home. You know, that would be more than enough for me to be afraid of them, regardless of how they appeared. A pre-teen has more than enough strength to shoot a gun, and hit me at house range (say under 20 feet). Guns can be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.
Thanks to firearms, anyone could shoot me.
Anyone that breaks into my house means me harm.
In my mind, they are most likely going to shoot me to keep doing that harm or avoid the law they scoff at by breaking into my home.
To reiterate, I am afraid of anyone that breaks into my home regardless of age, sex, race, or apparent social status. Anything else is prejudiced at best, racist at worst, and a whole other can of worms regardless. And yes, I am afraid enough to shoot without warning if they are between me and other members of my family (not immediately between- that would be tragically ironic).
If you'd rather defend the rights of a criminal committing a crime, by all means do so.
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.[/quote]
So you're dooming the GG into bankruptcy and potential jailtime because of what the BG did. This sort of reasoning is exactly why this law and similar laws were put in place. SD is an affirmative defense, if they can't prove it they are going to prison. With "no assumptions" its just one guys shooting another guy and the full weight of the state against some poor homeowner who did nothing more than make the mistake of being alive when the BG broke in to do him and his family harm. This is not sane.
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh wow... so you did understand that they had already broken into yourr home. You know, that would be more than enough for me to be afraid of them, regardless of how they appeared. A pre-teen has more than enough strength to shoot a gun, and hit me at house range (say under 20 feet). Guns can be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand.
Thanks to firearms, anyone could shoot me.
Anyone that breaks into my house means me harm.
In my mind, they are most likely going to shoot me to keep doing that harm or avoid the law they scoff at by breaking into my home.
To reiterate, I am afraid of anyone that breaks into my home regardless of age, sex, race, or apparent social status. Anything else is prejudiced at best, racist at worst, and a whole other can of worms regardless. And yes, I am afraid enough to shoot without warning if they are between me and other members of my family (not immediately between- that would be tragically ironic).
If you'd rather defend the rights of a criminal committing a crime, by all means do so.
I'm not defending the rights of a criminal. That is not why we have legal defense. I'm defending the due process of law.
And this has nothing to do with prejudice, the scenario I gave has to do with obviously having the jump on someone who isn't obviously armed. Like I said, they don't follow instructions and leave my home, they get shot. I'm not attacking the right to self defense, I'm making a point about protection under law.
Back in the day they had a concept called outlawing, where someone was litterally *out* of the protection of *law*. It was one of the worse things you could do, possibly worse than the death penalty, as anyone could do what they wanted to the person, and they had no protection under the law of the King. They didn't generally do this for petty theft and tresspass, but rather things like murder and treason. There is a big difference.
I think there are plenty of reasons that may lead to you shooting someone in your house. I mean, you can't wait till they lay a hand on you to shoot them. I'm not arguing with *intent*, but I don't think that killing someone justified by forced entry alone should have blanket protection under law. The authorities need the legal leverage to investigate it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
But thats the thing, the criteria is forced entry. The fear part is entirely subjective and the word of the shooter. I'm not saying he *shouldn't* shoot the intruder, I probably would in a lot of situations. But I don't think you should be issued carte blanche to use lethal force on entry alone. I think if that happens both parties need to be looked at by the authorities to see what is going on, and the law needs to make no assumptions.[/quote]
So you're dooming the GG into bankruptcy and potential jailtime because of what the BG did. This sort of reasoning is exactly why this law and similar laws were put in place. SD is an affirmative defense, if they can't prove it they are going to prison. With "no assumptions" its just one guys shooting another guy and the full weight of the state against some poor homeowner who did nothing more than make the mistake of being alive when the BG broke in to do him and his family harm. This is not sane.
No Fraz, you're putting a lot of presumptions in there. If the shooter had ulterior motives other than self defense, then they should go to jail. If it is the shooters word against a dead man, are you just going to take it at face value? That is why it shouldn't have blanket protection. If the GG is truly the GG after sifting through the evidence, then its self defense, he was terrified, protected his home, end of story. If it turns out it was a drug deal gone bad, someone goes to jail.
No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.
You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.
As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.
Frazzled wrote:No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.
You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.
As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.
Yes, you are correct, I"m defending what I think the legal system should be, because there is a debate going on, or was going on, about castle doctrine in the state of TN, my state. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* shoot an intruder who is obviously unarmed; What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a blanket right to do so. I think if you kill someone the law needs to look at you first as someone who has killed someone, then when the evidence comes in, it looks at you as someone who did what they had to do to protect their life and liberty.
I like you Fraz, but I'm going to have to come out and say that it is real easy to call someone a coward over a text box, and you're sorely mistaken. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm arguing from what I feel is *right*, not because I'm a pansy liberal or whatever you call it in the great state of Texas.
I believe with all my heart that one of the ideals of America is that the government, a government for the people by the people, is a government that trusts its citizenry with arms. I also believe that comes with legal responsibility. Like Victor Frankl said, and I paraphrase, since there is a statue of liberty on the east coast, there should be build a statue of responsibility on the west coast. Both concepts go together. I think that if you take the liberty to use a firearm in self defense you have to accept that you're going to be investigated if you kill someone.
That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. What it means is that the people need to ask questions and make sure you're on the up and up.
Frazzled wrote:No you're not defending the due process of law. You're defending what you think the legal system should be NOT HOW IT IS.
You keep saying obviously isn't armed. Thats nuts and why you Grignard should never do anything but run like a bunny in this circumstance, because you'll get yourself killed with that assumption.
As Gitzibah noted, if there are family members in the pictures this theory goes out the window. You go forward not back and defned them utterly from any attack.
Yes, you are correct, I"m defending what I think the legal system should be, because there is a debate going on, or was going on, about castle doctrine in the state of TN, my state. I'm not saying you *shouldn't* shoot an intruder who is obviously unarmed; What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a blanket right to do so. I think if you kill someone the law needs to look at you first as someone who has killed someone, then when the evidence comes in, it looks at you as someone who did what they had to do to protect their life and liberty.
I like you Fraz, but I'm going to have to come out and say that it is real easy to call someone a coward over a text box, and you're sorely mistaken. I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm arguing from what I feel is *right*, not because I'm a pansy liberal or whatever you call it in the great state of Texas.
I believe with all my heart that one of the ideals of America is that the government, a government for the people by the people, is a government that trusts its citizenry with arms. I also believe that comes with legal responsibility. Like Victor Frankl said, and I paraphrase, since there is a statue of liberty on the east coast, there should be build a statue of responsibility on the west coast. Both concepts go together. I think that if you take the liberty to use a firearm in self defense you have to accept that you're going to be investigated if you kill someone.
That doesn't mean you can't defend yourself. What it means is that the people need to ask questions and make sure you're on the up and up.
1. I didn't call you a coward. You're making the Gun Equals Man reference. I said you lack judgement in what the threat is, and that lack of judgement could get you killed in this circumstance. Your safest option is to run quickly. I'd proffer the same for many people. I'd proffer the same for my kids and wife if there is such a route.
2. All the other stuff you said is fine but doesn't have jack to do with the issue of self defense. I could have a crow bar.
3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.
1. I didn't call you a coward. You're making the Gun Equals Man reference. I said you lack judgement in what the threat is, and that lack of judgement could get you killed in this circumstance. Your safest option is to run quickly. I'd proffer the same for many people. I'd proffer the same for my kids and wife if there is such a route.
Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me.
2. All the other stuff you said is fine but doesn't have jack to do with the issue of self defense. I could have a crow bar.
The thread started as a gun thread though, and you know as well as I do that for all practical purposes the contraversy is over firearms, not self defense. Regardless of what you're armed with, my opinion doesn't change, for that matter
3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.
If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?
Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me. That is sound advice and I would recommend such, in similar manner to the fire situation. I do not have this option. If its in the house then there is family there and they must be protected. Even if there is no family I have the doggies and yes I'd skin the BG alive with a swiss army knife before I'd permit harm to the doggies. The BG is a waste of skin. The doggies are not.
3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.
If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country? Thats the problem, you don't understand presumptions and costs. There are always presumptions, and the costs are staggering to a trial.
Alright, fair enough. I deny I was making the gun equals man reference, but I'll accept that wasn't your intent. I agree that the best solution is to run quickly. You owe a thief no honor, because he has none, and there is no shame in running from a potentially dangerous situation when there is nothing to be gained by staying. If someone breaks in my house at night though and I awaken in the middle of the night, I'd shoot them. Different situations, and I deny that my judgment is as bad as you think. Also, while I'm not arguing what the law *is*, the law is different in my state, which was why I brought up castle doctrine in the first place because I don't think TN should follow that road. I'm a proud member of the NRA, and I was just as proud to mark no on the loaded castle doctrine survey they sent me. That is sound advice and I would recommend such, in similar manner to the fire situation. I do not have this option. If its in the house then there is family there and they must be protected. Even if there is no family I have the doggies and yes I'd skin the BG alive with a swiss army knife before I'd permit harm to the doggies. The BG is a waste of skin. The doggies are not.
3. There's a massive difference between "asking questions" and being accused/going to trial. The fact you're not getting that is...disconcerting but reveals you may lack informaiton here which is impacting your reasoning. Asking questions is what occurs in the jurisdictions I am referring to. Prosecution is what you're really espousing and that occurs in places like New York and Chicago. no.
If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country? Thats the problem, you don't understand presumptions and costs. There are always presumptions, and the costs are staggering to a trial.
I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.
Its not that I don't believe you have a right to self defense. It has more to do with society than any specific situation. I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong. It doesn't matter what is actually occuring, it is a philisophical standpoint. I think it sets a very bad precedent.
I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life. If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right. A burglar needs to go to jail and be punished, not killed. I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.
Grignard wrote: You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.
With modern forensics, I really do not see this being an issue. They can predict probable distance of the firearm, angle of the shot, and gather all manner of evidence which to us would be meaningless or invisible. A criminal mastermind able to move a body without any signs of a struggle into his home, then shoot it and report it to the police, would be as capable of hiding the body in an anonymous fashion. Heck, time of death alone precludes much of the ability to stage a scene, unless you hold your victim until the wee hours of the morning, break into your own home and then untie them and shoot them.
It seems like it would be much easier to stage a suicide, if you really wanted to kill someone and evade investigation. I'm sure there are pointed questions asked when a Castle killing is reported. No police officer worth their salt is going to respond to a body in your house by saying "You know, don't worry about it. He was in your house, so you're ok. We'll just call the coroner on our way out.".
Even when I was in a car accident where I was hit from behind, I was interviewed (interrogated) for about 15 minutes at the scene- and this was a minor fender bender for me. They spent a half hour checking our insurance, verifying our tags and license, and then sent us on our way. That was for pure property damage, with both sides telling a similar story. I do not think for one instant that our law enforcement officials would be more lax about a firearms death in a home because there was a castle law. Like Frazzled has pointed out, there just would not be an accusation or indictment made against the homeowner once the facts of the matter were established.
In short, criminals crafty enough to abuse the Castle law are crafty enough to have other ways to dispose of bodies and evidence.
I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.
No its part and parcel of the same issue.
I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong. That is not the intent of the law. Thats what YOU think the intent is, and its wrong. The law's intent reflects the presumption that this BG is a bad actor and has placed others in immediate peril or fear of it. They are not burgling a donut shop. They have entered someone's house with people in the house. Imagine if this is grandma's house. Thats a fear that grandma is never going to get away from. grandma is not swift like you and is in serious peril and fear. Just moving fast dramatically increases the likelihood of a fall. A fall will likely break her hip. If she breaks her hip she's dead in 6 months.
I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life.
I'd agree except when it comes to family or innocent bystanders. I'd burn you alive to protect family, without a thought.
If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right.
You're the only one espousing that this is the case. Its not. If it was it would be occurring now. There's no great amok storm of people capping intruders and then sucking down a twelve pack without repurcussion. These things are always investigated by the police and prosecutor, even in the strongest castle doctrine states.
I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist
And that violates one of the stated requirements of the law and is also basic stare decisis for SD. The person claiming SD can't themselves be committing criminal activity (this is actually a cool Bar question on the multiple choice/T/F section).
Grignard wrote: You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist.
It seems like it would be much easier to stage a suicide, if you really wanted to kill someone and evade investigation. I'm sure there are pointed questions asked when a Castle killing is reported. No police officer worth their salt is going to respond to a body in your house by saying "You know, don't worry about it. He was in your house, so you're ok. We'll just call the coroner on our way out.".
My neighbor died of natural causes (im pretty sure). I got involved because the neighbors know im a registered nurse, and she came running to my house in the middle of the night for help. (she knocked).
Because i was in the house doing CPR when the police arrived i had to give a full statement, fingerprints, all that jazz. The scene was completely documented and photgraphed. All this was done for a guy that obviously had a heart attack i his sleep (as far as i could tell).
Frazzled wrote: I guess that is just where I stand. It is unfortunate that legal defense costs are what they are, but that is another issue. The fact is someone is dead which needs to be investigated. I believe a carte blanc right to use lethal force on your property for the sole reason of entering property could affect whether or not justice is served.
No its part and parcel of the same issue.
I don't agree. They *should* be separate concerns altogether
I think laws that devalue human life based solely on trespassing are ethically wrong. That is not the intent of the law. Thats what YOU think the intent is, and its wrong. The law's intent reflects the presumption that this BG is a bad actor and has placed others in immediate peril or fear of it. They are not burgling a donut shop. They have entered someone's house with people in the house. Imagine if this is grandma's house. Thats a fear that grandma is never going to get away from. grandma is not swift like you and is in serious peril and fear. Just moving fast dramatically increases the likelihood of a fall. A fall will likely break her hip. If she breaks her hip she's dead in 6 months.
In such an obvious case only someone who was deaf dumb and blind would accuse that person of a crime. I still don't see how you need a universal shield against prosecution.
I most emphatically disagree that because someone is a burglar then they are life unworthy of life.
I'd agree except when it comes to family or innocent bystanders. I'd burn you alive to protect family, without a thought.
I think it is wrong to assume that someone who forcefully enters property is going to do grievous harm. They're burglars. I'm sorry, but if you shoot a man in the back, or someone who is pleading for their life, then you need to be prosecuted, regardless if that person was commiting a crime. If you wake up in the night and there is someone in the house, and you're frightened, that is a different story entirely.
If youre frightened by an intruder and use force to defend yourself, then that is what you had to do, but a open season on someone because they're on your property ( with the shooter as the sole judge on if he was frightened enough to justify force) is not right.
You're the only one espousing that this is the case. Its not. If it was it would be occurring now. There's no great amok storm of people capping intruders and then sucking down a twelve pack without repurcussion. These things are always investigated by the police and prosecutor, even in the strongest castle doctrine states.
Apparently I'm not the only person with problems with it, or there wouldn't be a debate in my state about it. You said yourself there are parts of the country where this does not hold true. There isn't a storm of people out robbing banks, but it is still against the law
I am concerned about cases where someone getting shot on an owners property is a problem, such as a drug deal gone bad. You can't simulatenously say that there are enough dangerous criminals running around to justify castle doctrine and that criminals who would use the law to their advantage don't exist
And that violates one of the stated requirements of the law and is also basic stare decisis for SD. The person claiming SD can't themselves be committing criminal activity (this is actually a cool Bar question on the multiple choice/T/F section).
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.
You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.
When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.
Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.
You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.
When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.
Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.
I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.
You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.
When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.
Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.
I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.
The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.
You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.
When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.
Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.
I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.
The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.
In said case, why did shots need to be fired? They were leaving. That is when you call the police and report a theft.
I'm just saying there needs to be a window for prosecuting excessive use of force. Its just like the police should not be able to hide behind police powers when they use excessive force. Did the police really need to shoot a guy 40 something times? Did multiple armed men need to beat Rodney King when he was on the ground? Of course not. That is simple brutality and cruelty, and personally I won't stand for it.
Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.
Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?
I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.
This is just one of my limitations. I don't study law, I've never taken a bar exam, and I won't know all the terms in a legal document. But I'm an educated man and can think critically about things. I'm just not sure that breaking and entering regardless of intent warrants a death penalty. Thats different than SD.
Then its just an issue of morality, not legality.
You dont think that breaking into someones house should be a death penalty. Im not wishing it on you by any means but until you have had it happen to you, there isnt a lot you can say to convince me otherwise.
When you wake up and there is someone in your room, rummaging around, and no way to defend yourself. Its one of the most terrifying, helpless feelings you will ever experience. I wont let it happen to me again.
Its icing on the cake when the cops tell you there isnt a lot they can do about it. Other then file a report and keep their eyes open. So yeah , i dont have a problem putting a bullet in them.
I don't have to have someone break into my house to understand that it would be a terrifying experience. I'm am 100% for the ability for you to shoot an invader if you're terrified and you don't know their intent. I'm sure in the vast majority of cases where it occurs that is exactly what happened. However, it would be possible to have a situation where the problem was neutralized and an intruder was killed out of malice ( I don't know if this is the legal definition of malice, I mean it in the common sense), and yes, I believe the window for prosecution needs to be open there. It isn't about what probably will happen, its about what could happen.
The window for prosecution might be out there, and could possibly be valid. If you shoot him running or leaving the house thats one thing. there was actually a case about this where a kid got 2 counts of manslaughter for shooting robbers as they walked out the door. He ended up taking a plea and got probation and thats it. I doubt any jury, at least in texas, would convict someone for defending their property. I could see manslaughter with probation, but i doubt they would see jailtime.
It has happened in NY. thats what the castle doctrine was so specifically codified in Texas.
I'm just saying there needs to be a window for prosecuting excessive use of force.
Thats what we are saying. There already is. These things are fully investigated.
At this point I think any argument is just giving Grignard ammunition. We can move on to higher caliber arguments.
We Americans love guns because they are the single biggest argument for our archaic and sacred measurement system, which we so arrogantly refer to as standard. .50 caliber bullets that are 1/2 inch in diameter are just so much cooler sounding than 5.56 mm rounds. Just as knights, swords and castles dominated Europe's founding, the revolver and the cavalry dominated our national conscious. Part of me still yearns for a simpler time when a man could ride into the desert and fight Indians or outlaws for fun and profit. When you didn't buy land, you just held it. That is the true nature of the American Dream. We are a people of conquest and exploration. That's why we took over the moon.
The disadvantage of Grignard reagents is that they readily react with protic solvents (such as water), or with functional groups with acidic protons, such as alcohols and amines.
Grignard wrote:If there is evidence of misconduct, then you should be prosecuted. Furthermore, that wouldn't mean everyone is out to get you. You're innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers in this country. The state *has* to prove you did something wrong. I don't see what is wrong with that, it is the way it has always worked, no? Isn't that something we hold dear in this country?
Actually my understanding is that this isn't true in the case of self-defense a lot of the time. All the court needs to prove is that you killed the man, which is well known, and probably something you've already admitted to doing. After that is established the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the killing was in self-defense. Which is a bad system, I think, in the case of a burglary.
Did the police really need to shoot a guy 40 something times?
If the police are discharging their firearms, it's to kill; 40 bullets will accomplish that end pretty assuredly. I'd be rather concerned if the police were instructed to "shoot to disable", actually, as I think that would be far more of a leap in the brutality of their actions than killing a corpse with more holes than necessary is. Of course, on the other hand, the police probably should have fired off less, from the standpoint of not possibly hurting someone with a ricochet if nothing else. Still, it sounds more like an issue of fear overriding their self-discipline than shooting someone a bunch of times just because they can.
When (my dad) boguht my rifle, he had to fill out some paper work and we waited about half an hour before they sold it to us.
This is actually the standard formula. You fill out a background check, the gun store calls the agency in charge of the check, they verify that you're good to go, and you leave with the weapon.
I actually got to a point with this process where I had the form, which is basically a series of true/false questions, memorized. If I recall, it was just true, all false, then the last true. But now I'm married and have kids, so I don't buy guns like I used to.
Thanks, I wasn't sure if things are done differently in other states, that's why I posted that.
halonachos wrote:That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?
Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.
Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?
I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.
It'd be stupid that is what it'd be. You're hidden and he has a weapon. He wants to take your stuff, not kill you. Suddenly you've thrust a sharp object into his body, and very possibly not killed him and if you haven't he is probably going to fight back after his life is clearly in danger now. On the other hand, remaining hidden (waiting for a chance to escape if possible) means that is almost no chance of being turned on you.
I would have no problem killing someone who invaded my home. I would make sure to kill them very thoroughly with my initial attack in order to prevent them attacking me back. It's not a matter of rational thinking, it's primal fear and the fight or flight response.
I know because I was once woken by the sound of an intruder. It was nothing real -- I realised months later my fridge compressor made a 'plinking' noice under certain conditions. However I thought it was real and it scared me enough to get my baseball bat and go looking for trouble.
The amount of adrenaline in my body, I think I would have ripped a tiger apart if it had been in my way. After that experience I got an axe.
I wouldn't have enjoyed chopping someone's chest open because they broke into my flat but I would certainly have done it.
Kilkrazy wrote:I would have no problem killing someone who invaded my home. I would make sure to kill them very thoroughly with my initial attack in order to prevent them attacking me back. It's not a matter of rational thinking, it's primal fear and the fight or flight response.
I know because I was once woken by the sound of an intruder. It was nothing real -- I realised months later my fridge compressor made a 'plinking' noice under certain conditions. However I thought it was real and it scared me enough to get my baseball bat and go looking for trouble.
The amount of adrenaline in my body, I think I would have ripped a tiger apart if it had been in my way. After that experience I got an axe.
I wouldn't have enjoyed chopping someone's chest open because they broke into my flat but I would certainly have done it.
halonachos wrote:That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?
Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.
Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?
I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.
It'd be stupid that is what it'd be. You're hidden and he has a weapon. He wants to take your stuff, not kill you. Suddenly you've thrust a sharp object into his body, and very possibly not killed him and if you haven't he is probably going to fight back after his life is clearly in danger now. On the other hand, remaining hidden (waiting for a chance to escape if possible) means that is almost no chance of being turned on you.
I'm not sure what the Jena six have to do with the wording of laws regarding self defense on private property.
That does bring up an interesting point as it relates to firearms. I don't think the way that the authorities look at firearms is color blind. One thing I was glad to see was the NRA politically and financially supporting African Americans who had arms illegally confiscated during the unrest associated with Hurricane Katrina and their efforts to get their property ( the firearms ) back.
Fraz and company and I essentially don't disagree much. Ultimately it gets down to differences in wording in certain laws. I believe either one of us would probably react the same way if we were armed and encountered an intruder in our home in most cases. My problem is essentially with what I feel is the increasing tendency of US citizens to want to do away with the legal protections that we used to hold dear in this country, and an increasing tendency to see any criminal at all as life unworthy of life.
I'm a bit different than many firearms enthusiasts. With the exception of hunting, I look at my firearms as an interesting hobby, sport, and exercise of a right rather than any practical application. I have no problem using lethal force on someone who breaks in my home in the middle of the night, but I have chosen not to keep my firearms loaded for such a purpose as I have decided I do not have enough training in that type of shooting to safely do so with other people in the house.
halonachos wrote:That depends,what do you feel about the Jena 6?
Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.
Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?
I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.
It'd be stupid that is what it'd be. You're hidden and he has a weapon. He wants to take your stuff, not kill you. Suddenly you've thrust a sharp object into his body, and very possibly not killed him and if you haven't he is probably going to fight back after his life is clearly in danger now. On the other hand, remaining hidden (waiting for a chance to escape if possible) means that is almost no chance of being turned on you.
I'm sorry, but take into account the fact that there may be family in the rooms up ahead. I would rather stab someone in the back, which there are many ways to kill a person(kidneys, lungs, spinal cord, liver, etc) than chance them hurting any other members of my family. And if he has a gun or a weapon I think that its safe to say the thief may be willing to hurt, maim, or kill if they plan to bring a weapon into another person's home.
This fantasy people have, of a guy coming into their house, intent on doing harm to their family, where there's no chance to barricade one's self, or simply get out, the only solution is a fight to the death. What is it? Seriously? Where does it come from?
Seeing as though the neighbors across the street where busted for dealing drugs in the same house that there was an attempted murder/suicide, a corner from the house in which a man cut off the head of his own child, less than a quarter mile away from a place where there was a police standoff and a marine had every single one of his weapons stolen from his house midday, I believe I have reason to not call that a fantasy.
The doors inside my house are laughable when it comes to barricading and all of the "good stuff" resides in our bedrooms and the front door cuts the house in half with all of the bedrooms on one side so escape is nearly impossible.
halonachos wrote:Seeing as though the neighbors across the street where busted for dealing drugs in the same house that there was an attempted murder/suicide, a corner from the house in which a man cut off the head of his own child, less than a quarter mile away from a place where there was a police standoff and a marine had every single one of his weapons stolen from his house midday, I believe I have reason to not call that a fantasy.
The doors inside my house are laughable when it comes to barricading and all of the "good stuff" resides in our bedrooms and the front door cuts the house in half with all of the bedrooms on one side so escape is nearly impossible.
Yeah, I'm not arguing against personal protection, I get that. It's not a choice I'd make, but I live in a decent area and have been lucky so far, but I don't think other people are unreasonable for wanting that protection.
It's the bizarre nature of the hypotheticals that get to me, we're talking about a person lying in wait with a knife as a burglar goes past them on the way to their children's room. What is that?
It's like a bar exam or an ethics question during a med school interview. Hell, look at any aptitude test in any country for any occupation and you will find some kind of odd hypothetical question. It's not an American concept you know.
Although in my case I would have a machete and not a knife. It is safe to assume that most americans have at least a knife in their home.
halonachos wrote:It's like a bar exam or an ethics question during a med school interview. Hell, look at any aptitude test in any country for any occupation and you will find some kind of odd hypothetical question. It's not an American concept you know.
Sure, but I've read the hypotheticals in these cases a lot and they tend to make very similar assumptions - the random evil stranger coming in to the house to commit violence, the impossibility of escape, the need to protect loved ones. They're features that remove complexity from a hypothetical. If those things were unknown in the circumstance it's a more interesting question.
Although in my case I would have a machete and not a knife. It is safe to assume that most americans have at least a knife in their home.
There'd be very few houses in the world without a knife.
sebster wrote:
It's the bizarre nature of the hypotheticals that get to me, we're talking about a person lying in wait with a knife as a burglar goes past them on the way to their children's room. What is that?
An attempt at coercing a 'correct' answer from an otherwise wholly mutable situation. Same as any thought experiment in ethics.
Another famous one:
There's a run away trolley hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which the trolley must pass before reaching the 5 people. You know that if you drop a heavy weight in front of the trolley, it will stop. As luck would have it, there is a very fat man standing just so as to allow you to push him off the bridge; thereby locating him in the trolley's path. He will most certainly die, but the 5 people will be saved.
dogma wrote:An attempt at coercing a 'correct' answer from an otherwise wholly mutable situation. Same as any thought experiment in ethics.
Except I'm not convinced it exists as a thought experiment only. I suspect a lot of people out there really believe that regular folk suffer break ins and violent attacks frequently.
Oh no, neither am I, I think the 'thought experiments' presented in this thread are closer to descriptions of the underlying assumptions of the people posting them than legitimate thought experiments.
They're loaded so as to permit the derogation of anyone who would not make the choice that is assumed to be correct, which is really very boring. Its also the main reason I only take to reading this thread when I'm very bored.
I would push the fat man off in the name of the greater good and not even blink twice as he is turned into mush as the trolly plows over him.
Unless of course the 5 people in the trollys path was an all guy/girl band. Then in the name of the greater good I would allow the trolly to end our suffering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:I suspect a lot of people out there really believe that regular folk suffer break ins and violent attacks frequently.
What??
Who else are we talking about here, if not regular folk? The common, everyday person IS the person that is the victem here on a daily basis.
dogma wrote:Oh no, neither am I, I think the 'thought experiments' presented in this thread are closer to descriptions of the underlying assumptions of the people posting them than legitimate thought experiments.
They're loaded so as to permit the derogation of anyone who would not make the choice that is assumed to be correct, which is really very boring. Its also the main reason I only take to reading this thread when I'm very bored.
Yeah, unfortunately loaded hypotheticals are part of life on the internet.
And yeah, I haven't been drawn to having this conversation yet again. I have read and argued this whole thing a lot of times before - it's a topic where worldviews seemed to get fixed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jp400 wrote:What??
Who else are we talking about here, if not regular folk? The common, everyday person IS the person that is the victem here on a daily basis.
The number of victims of murder at the hands of strangers is extremely small. When it does occur it is almost always due to a bungled break in, pre-meditated home invasion with lethal intent is incredibly small. As in single digits per year.
jp400 wrote:So are my chances of being in a head on crash with a moose.... but that doesn't change the fact that I am going to wear my seatbelt regardless.
I was sure you were going to say you shoot every moose on sight in case .
In fact..yes..from now we/re going to assume that is what you said.
sebster wrote:This fantasy people have, of a guy coming into their house, intent on doing harm to their family, where there's no chance to barricade one's self, or simply get out, the only solution is a fight to the death. What is it? Seriously? Where does it come from?
Real life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:It's like a bar exam or an ethics question during a med school interview. Hell, look at any aptitude test in any country for any occupation and you will find some kind of odd hypothetical question. It's not an American concept you know.
Although in my case I would have a whirling chainsaw and rocket propelled weiner dog and not a knife. It is safe to assume that most americans have at least a knife in their home.
fixed your typo
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote:
jp400 wrote:So are my chances of being in a head on crash with a moose.... but that doesn't change the fact that I am going to wear my seatbelt regardless.
I was sure you were going to say you shoot every moose on sight in case .
In fact..yes..from now we/re going to assume that is what you said.
Moose (Meese?) are in Canadia eh! That would be impolite, unless the moose was talking about hockey in which case its game on.
sebster wrote:
It's the bizarre nature of the hypotheticals that get to me, we're talking about a person lying in wait with a knife as a burglar goes past them on the way to their children's room. What is that?
An attempt at coercing a 'correct' answer from an otherwise wholly mutable situation. Same as any thought experiment in ethics.
Another famous one:
There's a run away trolley hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which the trolley must pass before reaching the 5 people. You know that if you drop a heavy weight in front of the trolley, it will stop. As luck would have it, there is a very fat man standing just so as to allow you to push him off the bridge; thereby locating him in the trolley's path. He will most certainly die, but the 5 people will be saved.
Consequently, I spent my time reading this hypothetical situation wondering a) how a trolley could kill 5 people and b) why they didn't just step out of the way.
sebster wrote:This fantasy people have, of a guy coming into their house, intent on doing harm to their family, where there's no chance to barricade one's self, or simply get out, the only solution is a fight to the death. What is it? Seriously? Where does it come from?
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
My friends apartment was broken into, in the middle of the day, and he pretty much lost everything. (computer, TV, DVD's all that). Better question there is how did no one notice...
My mom had her house broken into.
Its not as uncommon as people think. 20% (internet soource so take it as you will) of homes are burglarized every year. Thats a 1 in 5 chance your home will be robbed. Now there are things to take into account such as your neighborhood and city but yeah.
How many of those would attack you if you caught them? well I know 1 of the 3 ran like hell, but cant speak for the other two. To me its just not worth the risk, lots of sick people out there.
sebster wrote:This fantasy people have, of a guy coming into their house, intent on doing harm to their family, where there's no chance to barricade one's self, or simply get out, the only solution is a fight to the death. What is it? Seriously? Where does it come from?
While I don't agree with a black and white castle doctrine, I believe you're wrong about that, at least where I live. Knoxville is OK right now, but Chattanooga has had a marked increase in gang activity in the last couple years, for whatever reason. While crime related to this activity is generally targeted at other people involved in gang activity, thats 1. Still wrong in the first place. 2. Has gotten innocent people killed. The police have said in a press release that their has been an increase in home invasion related crimes. This isn't a few cases that have been sensationalized. While your risks of being subjected to this sort of crime is still very low, it has increased in that area.
I don't think it is at all unreasonable to keep a weapon in your home for defense if you take the massive responsibility that entails. My disagreement was with certain proposed changes in the law in my state regarding use of force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
My friends apartment was broken into, in the middle of the day, and he pretty much lost everything. (computer, TV, DVD's all that). Better question there is how did no one notice...
My mom had her house broken into.
Its not as uncommon as people think. 20% (internet soource so take it as you will) of homes are burglarized every year. Thats a 1 in 5 chance your home will be robbed. Now there are things to take into account such as your neighborhood and city but yeah.
How many of those would attack you if you caught them? well I know 1 of the 3 ran like hell, but cant speak for the other two. To me its just not worth the risk, lots of sick people out there.
On the other hand, I dont think that you have a 1 in 5 chance of being invaded. Most people who want to burgle are going to wait till someone isn't home.
halonachos wrote:
I'm sorry, but take into account the fact that there may be family in the rooms up ahead.
That wasn't part of the (which others have pointed out, silly) scenario.
I would rather stab someone in the back, which there are many ways to kill a person(kidneys, lungs, spinal cord, liver, etc) than chance them hurting any other members of my family.
Certainly a Knife can do a lot of damage to a person, it quite easily kill them. However there are a lot of variables that go into that and somebody trained in killing can have a hard enough time putting down a target in a single stroke. I'm most certainly not convinced your average frightened home owner with his pocket knife or something grabbed out of the kitchen is going to end things instantly. There's a pretty good chance of a struggle taking place.
And if he has a gun or a weapon I think that its safe to say the thief may be willing to hurt, maim, or kill if they plan to bring a weapon into another person's home.
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
Chongara wrote:
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
It may seem like I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but I'm not. In that case, if someone breaks in my home with a gun, then their life is forfeit if I'm armed. That person may have just been trying to intimidate, but I have no way of knowing that. When you bring a gun into play you've just upped the ante as far as it will go. Thats why I say that if you aren't absolutely sure you can fire a weapon at another human being you shouldn't be using one for defense. As soon as that gun comes out someone is going to flee or be seriously hurt or dead.
Chongara wrote:
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
It may seem like I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but I'm not. In that case, if someone breaks in my home with a gun, then their life is forfeit if I'm armed. That person may have just been trying to intimidate, but I have no way of knowing that. When you bring a gun into play you've just upped the ante as far as it will go. Thats why I say that if you aren't absolutely sure you can fire a weapon at another human being you shouldn't be using one for defense. As soon as that gun comes out someone is going to flee or be seriously hurt or dead.
Let's say that between it being dark, the homeowner not being a military sniper, and the invader not standing perfectly still while they line up their shots he's only seriously hurt. He starts discharging his own weapon. At this point the chances of someone other than the home invader or the home defender winding up seriously hurt or dead just increased dramatically.
Chongara wrote:
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
It may seem like I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but I'm not. In that case, if someone breaks in my home with a gun, then their life is forfeit if I'm armed. That person may have just been trying to intimidate, but I have no way of knowing that. When you bring a gun into play you've just upped the ante as far as it will go. Thats why I say that if you aren't absolutely sure you can fire a weapon at another human being you shouldn't be using one for defense. As soon as that gun comes out someone is going to flee or be seriously hurt or dead.
Let's say that between it being dark, the homeowner not being a military sniper, and the invader not standing perfectly still while they line up their shots he's only seriously hurt. He starts discharging his own weapon. At this point the chances of someone other than the home invader or the home defender winding up seriously hurt or dead just increased dramatically.
Thats why I said you need to have the proper training and preparation if you're going to do that. I also believe you should get out and call the police if you can, but it might be very difficult to do so. If you can't get out, I'd rather have a gun than not if I were trained, at least that is my opinion.
How big are most rooms in homes? With a full sized handgun I can assure you I can hit someone moving or not that is 10 feet away, even in fear. I have made my choice not to keep my guns loaded for reasons other than that. Furthermore, if you hit someone with a medium or large caliber handgun round ( say at least .380 ACP) with today's ammunition, they're going to be at very least in great pain.
Chongara wrote:
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
It may seem like I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but I'm not. In that case, if someone breaks in my home with a gun, then their life is forfeit if I'm armed. That person may have just been trying to intimidate, but I have no way of knowing that. When you bring a gun into play you've just upped the ante as far as it will go. Thats why I say that if you aren't absolutely sure you can fire a weapon at another human being you shouldn't be using one for defense. As soon as that gun comes out someone is going to flee or be seriously hurt or dead.
Let's say that between it being dark, the homeowner not being a military sniper, and the invader not standing perfectly still while they line up their shots he's only seriously hurt. He starts discharging his own weapon. At this point the chances of someone other than the home invader or the home defender winding up seriously hurt or dead just increased dramatically.
Thats why I said you need to have the proper training and preparation if you're going to do that. I also believe you should get out and call the police if you can, but it might be very difficult to do so. If you can't get out, I'd rather have a gun than not if I were trained, at least that is my opinion.
How big are most rooms in homes? With a full sized handgun I can assure you I can hit someone moving or not that is 10 feet away, even in fear. I have made my choice not to keep my guns loaded for reasons other than that. Furthermore, if you hit someone with a medium or large caliber handgun round ( say at least .380 ACP) with today's ammunition, they're going to be at very least in great pain.
OR just use a shotgun, if you miss with that well.... You just suck!
Chongara wrote:
Willing, maybe. It can be as much for intimidation factor as anything else. Even if they are willing, they're probably not eager. A burglar wants to steal stuff and get out. Whatever their original attentions with the weapon might have been, once you attack you've turned them deadly.
It may seem like I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, so to speak, but I'm not. In that case, if someone breaks in my home with a gun, then their life is forfeit if I'm armed. That person may have just been trying to intimidate, but I have no way of knowing that. When you bring a gun into play you've just upped the ante as far as it will go. Thats why I say that if you aren't absolutely sure you can fire a weapon at another human being you shouldn't be using one for defense. As soon as that gun comes out someone is going to flee or be seriously hurt or dead.
Let's say that between it being dark, the homeowner not being a military sniper, and the invader not standing perfectly still while they line up their shots he's only seriously hurt. He starts discharging his own weapon. At this point the chances of someone other than the home invader or the home defender winding up seriously hurt or dead just increased dramatically.
Thats why I said you need to have the proper training and preparation if you're going to do that. I also believe you should get out and call the police if you can, but it might be very difficult to do so. If you can't get out, I'd rather have a gun than not if I were trained, at least that is my opinion.
How big are most rooms in homes? With a full sized handgun I can assure you I can hit someone moving or not that is 10 feet away, even in fear. I have made my choice not to keep my guns loaded for reasons other than that. Furthermore, if you hit someone with a medium or large caliber handgun round ( say at least .380 ACP) with today's ammunition, they're going to be at very least in great pain.
OR just use a shotgun, if you miss with that well.... You just suck!
OR if your a really bad shot
When I took a handgun class they talked about some knucklehead who had a pistol grip shotgun who missed an intruder four (!) times with it. Of course he was also using number 8 bird.
Frazzled wrote:in close the spread pattern's less than the size of your fist. But man what a fist.
I can't imagine the wound caused by a very close range 12g bird. That's probably worse than a slug because its about the same mass but its all going to stop and make one hole.
The problem is beyond that short distance it isn't appropriate.
Frazzled wrote:in close the spread pattern's less than the size of your fist. But man what a fist.
I can't imagine the wound caused by a very close range 12g bird. That's probably worse than a slug because its about the same mass but its all going to stop and make one hole.
The problem is beyond that short distance it isn't appropriate.
ShivanAngel wrote:Number 8 bird... What a complete dumbass...
That wouldnt do anything but sting like hell and make the intruder spend 2 hours picking it all out from under his skin....
Buckshot on the other hand... 10 pellets the size of gravel.... Now that will rip a limb off!
This was the not to do example. He also chased the guy out of his store and fired at him as he was jumping in his vehicle. The birdshot glanced off the sloped glass but did blow his windshield wipers off.
Grignard wrote:While I don't agree with a black and white castle doctrine, I believe you're wrong about that, at least where I live. Knoxville is OK right now, but Chattanooga has had a marked increase in gang activity in the last couple years, for whatever reason. While crime related to this activity is generally targeted at other people involved in gang activity, thats 1. Still wrong in the first place. 2. Has gotten innocent people killed. The police have said in a press release that their has been an increase in home invasion related crimes. This isn't a few cases that have been sensationalized. While your risks of being subjected to this sort of crime is still very low, it has increased in that area.
There are people killed in violent crime, and plenty of them were just the wrong people in the wrong place. Some of them were simply in their own homes. But are you going to tell me that any but the most minute portion of home invasions were undertaken with the intent to attack the home owner?
Home invasion is a horrible thing, and every time it happens there's a chance of a violent confrontation, that's just the nature of it. But violence is hardly ever the intent, which means securing yourself in one room, or getting out of the house are very good options if your priority is physicaly safety.
Yet people talk act like it isn't just likely but almost certain the invader is coming right for them, and they have to confront them.
I don't think it is at all unreasonable to keep a weapon in your home for defense if you take the massive responsibility that entails. My disagreement was with certain proposed changes in the law in my state regarding use of force.
By all means do so. I'm not commenting on keeping a gun or not, I'm just puzzled over the idea that when a person does break into your house that an encounter is likely whether you want one or not.
ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.
It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.
Grignard wrote:While I don't agree with a black and white castle doctrine, I believe you're wrong about that, at least where I live. Knoxville is OK right now, but Chattanooga has had a marked increase in gang activity in the last couple years, for whatever reason. While crime related to this activity is generally targeted at other people involved in gang activity, thats 1. Still wrong in the first place. 2. Has gotten innocent people killed. The police have said in a press release that their has been an increase in home invasion related crimes. This isn't a few cases that have been sensationalized. While your risks of being subjected to this sort of crime is still very low, it has increased in that area.
There are people killed in violent crime, and plenty of them were just the wrong people in the wrong place. Some of them were simply in their own homes. But are you going to tell me that any but the most minute portion of home invasions were undertaken with the intent to attack the home owner?
Home invasion is a horrible thing, and every time it happens there's a chance of a violent confrontation, that's just the nature of it. But violence is hardly ever the intent, which means securing yourself in one room, or getting out of the house are very good options if your priority is physicaly safety.
Yet people talk act like it isn't just likely but almost certain the invader is coming right for them, and they have to confront them.
I don't think it is at all unreasonable to keep a weapon in your home for defense if you take the massive responsibility that entails. My disagreement was with certain proposed changes in the law in my state regarding use of force.
By all means do so. I'm not commenting on keeping a gun or not, I'm just puzzled over the idea that when a person does break into your house that an encounter is likely whether you want one or not.
ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.
It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.
The BG intent is to cause harm or create the environment where harm could be caused - aka they are assumign the risk that there is a confrontation.
The GG is just trying to get to sleep because he has to work in the morning.
Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.
When/If my home is broken into id rather assume the invader IS a cold blooded murderer then not. The time you assume he is just a petty criminal is the time the newest serial killer has picked your home.
ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.
Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?
If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.
sebster wrote:
ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.
It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.
Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.
Better safe than sorry is the phrase that springs to mind. During a break in, neither participant is under the protection of the law- the burglar has already violated the social contract that makes it reasonable to assume that your fellow man will treat you decently. As such, their needs are completely secondary to those of the defender. The defender needs to restore safety in the quickest, most conclusive way possible for everyone in the house.
If that involves provoking or preempting a confrontation by excessive force, then that is the defender's call. Safe escape would be preferable (after all, who wants to clean up blood stains, or spackle over bullet holes? Never mind what a documented killing does to your property value) but it may not always be an option.
ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.
Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?
If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.
sebster wrote:
ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.
Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.
Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.
It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.
Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.
Well Frazzled, I do not own a rocket propelled chainsaw weiner dog, I do have two weiner dogs so there's always an extra in case I mess up the first one.
halonachos wrote:Well Frazzled, I do not own a rocket propelled chainsaw weiner dog, I do have two weiner dogs so there's always an extra to remove any remaining body parts from the crime scene once the first one has torn the BG apart with its 15 lb of weinie rage!
Frazzled wrote:The BG intent is to cause harm or create the environment where harm could be caused - aka they are assumign the risk that there is a confrontation.
The GG is just trying to get to sleep because he has to work in the morning.
Yes, obviously. If there’s a confrontation then fingers crossed it’s the bad guy who cops it. But when there is a confrontation there’s never any certainty over who is going to come out best. If your priority is the safety of you and your family, then the best option is to simply avoid the home invader.
Note that says nothing about being defenceless.
My point, my very simple point, is to note how many of the hypotheticals involve invaders who aren’t there to take property, they’re after the occupants of the house. Making that extremely rare situation the base point makes an argument for actively confronting the burglar, which is a much riskier proposition than simply avoiding him.
ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.
When/If my home is broken into id rather assume the invader IS a cold blooded murderer then not. The time you assume he is just a petty criminal is the time the newest serial killer has picked your home.
Who said anything about assuming there wouldn’t be violence? Did you read my post? At all?
If you assume it is a cold-blooded murderer then simply avoiding him is no longer an option, instead you’re best off taking your chances confronting the dude, at which point there’s a chance you’ll come off second best.
If, instead, you go with the overwhelmingly likely chance that he’s just there to rob the place and you avoid confrontation. By all means prepare for the possibility that he’ll come after you, but don’t just assume it, that’s silly.
My point, again, is that people give examples in this thread that almost always assume confrontation will happen, when it’s incredibly rare that random strangers break into houses to kill the occupants.
Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?
If you consider theft and property damage violence equal to violence against a person, sure.
If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.
If you’re willing to assume that the homeowner will always win the confrontation, that’d be relevant. But that’d be a stupid assumption.
sebster wrote:Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.
“Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.
Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?
I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.”
If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.
If you’re willing to assume that the homeowner will always win the confrontation, that’d be relevant. But that’d be a stupid assumption.
Yeah, I guess it would be but what does that have to do with anything though? You bring up relevance, ironically. What bearing does winning the confrontation have on whether or not you're in danger from a firearm in the house that you're breaking in to? You'd only be 100% sure long after the fact...
Fair enough, the definition I’ve always assumed is entering the home without any interest in stealth or making sure the occupants are out of the house, it didn’t necessarily assume the burglars would be violent. A few years back my mate was in his room when he heard a noise, coming out he saw the window had been smashed and some DVDs and the like stolen by some kids running away down the street. This was referred to as a home invasion.
But it seems the definition you’ve been assuming is pretty standard, so I’ll accept that.
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I guess it would be but what does that have to do with anything though? You bring up relevance, ironically. What bearing does winning the confrontation have on whether or not you're in danger from a firearm in the house that you're breaking in to? You'd only be 100% sure long after the fact...
I think you’ve probably gotten the flow of the conversation a bit confused, there’s multiple people quoting multiple people over the course of a couple of days so it’s an easy mistake to make. I'll summarise it for you.
I questioned the likelihood that break-in had a violent intent. ShivanAngel responded to me, saying he had real world experience and that shotgun was enough to intimidate burglars out of the house. I repeated my point that I was questioning the assumption that burglars would be in the house to attack the occupants, as Shivan's response didn't address that. Shivan responded that just because most don’t end in violence, it doesn’t mean you can assume yours won’t. At which point you commented on Shivan’s point, saying that the burglar deserved what he got because he was breaking into the house.
We are talking about whether or not you should confront a person who’s entered your house. Your post makes the point that the burglar deserves whatever is coming his way, which would be fine if the only reason to avoid engagement was out of a moral concern for the welfare of the burglar. But that isn’t the only issue, there is also the increased risk the occupant suffers by going out to attack the burglar, as my reply to you pointed out.
Do you understand the flow of the conversation now?
Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.
Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...
On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."
Frazz, what does your state law say about use of force and fenced property posted with no trespass signs? In your state, if you break or circumvent a fence onto posted private property, what does the law say about that as it relates to castle doctrine.
For those who haven't been to Texas, some of these fences are very substatial because they're used to control the movement of very agile game. Its called high fence.
Whether or not I agree with their laws regarding force and property, I envy the hunting in Texas. They have all sorts of weird stuff down there. If there is some sort of meat you want to eat, odds are you can acquire it in Texas.
Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.
Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...
On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."
Agreed, I don't have the option to just kick it. I have family and dogs to protect. Not to mention my precious.
I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.
The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.
Trasvi wrote:I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.
The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.
Number one, you're assuming all "gun lovers" are using their arms for defense, and that they agree on castle doctrine. As you can see from my posts, that isnt necessarily true.
Furthermore, if they made every firearm illegal in the US tomorrow, they wouldn't disappear. Firearms have always been present in the US, and there were no national laws regulating them until 1935, and none with any real impact for most people until 1969. I don't know if there is any proof those laws initiated a drop in crime, or even gun crime. I think people are going to have to have community values if there is going to be a drop in such things.
My understanding is that you can still get a gun in Australia, though they've gotten more restrictive as of late.
Most importantly, why should I have to surrender my pistol that I enjoy shooting because of someone else doing something wrong?
Im not sure about in Texas, but in Louisiana our 500 acres is surrounded by a fence, and it is posted every 100 yards or so with no trespassing signs, as well as at every gate. From what I understand if someone trespasses you are allowed to escort them off your property by whatever means necessary, if they get violent or have a weapon, you can react accordingly. Course with 500 acres id just call the cops and watch from a distance. Unless they were shooting the cows or something.
Thats assuming that dogs on the property dont get a hold of them first.
Grignard wrote:Frazz, what does your state law say about use of force and fenced property posted with no trespass signs? In your state, if you break or circumvent a fence onto posted private property, what does the law say about that as it relates to castle doctrine.
For those who haven't been to Texas, some of these fences are very substatial because they're used to control the movement of very agile game. Its called high fence.
Whether or not I agree with their laws regarding force and property, I envy the hunting in Texas. They have all sorts of weird stuff down there. If there is some sort of meat you want to eat, odds are you can acquire it in Texas.
ShivanAngel wrote:Im not sure about in Texas, but in Louisiana our 500 acres is surrounded by a fence, and it is posted every 100 yards or so with no trespassing signs, as well as at every gate. From what I understand if someone trespasses you are allowed to escort them off your property by whatever means necessary, if they get violent or have a weapon, you can react accordingly. Course with 500 acres id just call the cops and watch from a distance. Unless they were shooting the cows or something.
Thats assuming that dogs on the property dont get a hold of them first.
When a family friend had a problem with poachers he just called the game warden, though he had quite a few hunting weapons. I was more curious if in Texas, or anywhere for that matter, you could use force solely because they crossed a posted fence, or if you had to tell them to leave first and only respond to a physical threat.
ShivanAngel wrote:Im not sure about in Texas, but in Louisiana our 500 acres is surrounded by a fence, and it is posted every 100 yards or so with no trespassing signs, as well as at every gate. From what I understand if someone trespasses you are allowed to escort them off your property by whatever means necessary, if they get violent or have a weapon, you can react accordingly. Course with 500 acres id just call the cops and watch from a distance. Unless they were shooting the cows or something.
Thats assuming that dogs on the property dont get a hold of them first.
When a family friend had a problem with poachers he just called the game warden, though he had quite a few hunting weapons. I was more curious if in Texas, or anywhere for that matter, you could use force solely because they crossed a posted fence, or if you had to tell them to leave first and only respond to a physical threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Even long pig?
I think you can only trophy hunt that
IIRC the signs posted on the property are the only "warning" they get.
ShivanAngel wrote:Im not sure about in Texas, but in Louisiana our 500 acres is surrounded by a fence, and it is posted every 100 yards or so with no trespassing signs, as well as at every gate. From what I understand if someone trespasses you are allowed to escort them off your property by whatever means necessary, if they get violent or have a weapon, you can react accordingly. Course with 500 acres id just call the cops and watch from a distance. Unless they were shooting the cows or something.
Thats assuming that dogs on the property dont get a hold of them first.
When a family friend had a problem with poachers he just called the game warden, though he had quite a few hunting weapons. I was more curious if in Texas, or anywhere for that matter, you could use force solely because they crossed a posted fence, or if you had to tell them to leave first and only respond to a physical threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Even long pig?
I think you can only trophy hunt that
IIRC the signs posted on the property are the only "warning" they get.
See, thats the part I don't agree with if that is actually the case. I have no problem if someone has a weapon when you encounter them and starts making threatening gestures. That is different.
Grignard wrote:Frazz, what does your state law say about use of force and fenced property posted with no trespass signs? In your state, if you break or circumvent a fence onto posted private property, what does the law say about that as it relates to castle doctrine.
For those who haven't been to Texas, some of these fences are very substatial because they're used to control the movement of very agile game. Its called high fence.
Whether or not I agree with their laws regarding force and property, I envy the hunting in Texas. They have all sorts of weird stuff down there. If there is some sort of meat you want to eat, odds are you can acquire it in Texas.
Even long pig?
Where do you think Taco Bell gets their meat?
Tresspassing-no you can't blast away. There's lots of case law on it. The castle doctrine is generally restricted to the house.
Note: none of this applies applies to women folk, who are protected under the "he needed killin' your honor" case law and can blast away at errant menfolk anywhere, anytime (at least thats what the wife tells me). Don't ever, ever mess with Texas women...
Hank Williams Jr, Texas Women Lyrics
Looking for Hank Williams Jr tabs and chords? Browse alphabet (above).
Artist: Williams Hank Jr
Song: Texas Women
Album: Greatest Hits Hank Williams Jr Sheet Music
Hank Williams Jr CDs
Send “Texas Women” Ringtone to Cell Phone
I've got some fond memories of San Angelo,
and I've seen some beauty queens in El Paso,
but the best lookin women that I've ever seen,
have all been in Texas and all wearin jeans
Chorus:
I'm a country plowboy, not an urban cowboy,
and I dont ride bulls but I have fought some men,
drive a pickup truck,
trust in God and luck and I live to love Texas women.
I thought I'd seen beauty in faraway places,
till I looked upon those Houston faces,
spent Hollywood nights up in Beverly Hills,
but they werent nothin like one night down in BROWNSVILLE
Repeat Chorus
I'm a pretty fair judge of the opposite sex,
and I aint seen nothin that will touch em' yet,
they may be from Waco or out in Lampassas,
but one thing about it they all come from Texas.
Repeat Chorus
I'm an Oiler fan not a soccer man,
and my arms are red and so is my blood,
and they make it boil with that soft Texas drawl and I love em all,
Texas women.
ShivanAngel wrote:Im not sure about in Texas, but in Louisiana our 500 acres is surrounded by a fence, and it is posted every 100 yards or so with no trespassing signs, as well as at every gate. From what I understand if someone trespasses you are allowed to escort them off your property by whatever means necessary, if they get violent or have a weapon, you can react accordingly. Course with 500 acres id just call the cops and watch from a distance. Unless they were shooting the cows or something.
Thats assuming that dogs on the property dont get a hold of them first.
When a family friend had a problem with poachers he just called the game warden, though he had quite a few hunting weapons. I was more curious if in Texas, or anywhere for that matter, you could use force solely because they crossed a posted fence, or if you had to tell them to leave first and only respond to a physical threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Even long pig?
I think you can only trophy hunt that
IIRC the signs posted on the property are the only "warning" they get.
See, thats the part I don't agree with if that is actually the case. I have no problem if someone has a weapon when you encounter them and starts making threatening gestures. That is different.
I disagree with that, there are warning all over the place. This is private property, do not enter. How stupid do you have to be to ignore those. You are obviously looking for trouble if you do. Though i dont think blasting away at the first sign of someone on your property is warranted.
I disagree with that, there are warning all over the place. This is private property, do not enter. How stupid do you have to be to ignore those. You are obviously looking for trouble if you do. Though i dont think blasting away at the first sign of someone on your property is warranted.
Then I'm not clear at what point you believe your justified in using force in a fence crossing incident.
I disagree with that, there are warning all over the place. This is private property, do not enter. How stupid do you have to be to ignore those. You are obviously looking for trouble if you do. Though i dont think blasting away at the first sign of someone on your property is warranted.
Then I'm not clear at what point you believe your justified in using force in a fence crossing incident.
I consider holding them at gunpoint and escorting them off your property force...
If you are talking about actually shooting the guy, if he has a weapon i would probably just lay low and call the cops. If he started shooting cows or horses, thats another story (and law i believe).
I disagree with that, there are warning all over the place. This is private property, do not enter. How stupid do you have to be to ignore those. You are obviously looking for trouble if you do. Though i dont think blasting away at the first sign of someone on your property is warranted.
Then I'm not clear at what point you believe your justified in using force in a fence crossing incident.
I consider holding them at gunpoint and escorting them off your property force...
If you are talking about actually shooting the guy, if he has a weapon i would probably just lay low and call the cops. If he started shooting cows or horses, thats another story (and law i believe).
I can partially see that as someone who isn't living in a rural setting doesn't realize that a person's animals might represent the majority of their net worth, and their loss might be unrecoverable.
Well your an adult, you have the internet, you go do some research on protecting your home without firearms, you shouldn't need a teenager to describe to you that a gun isnt the only form of protection.
ShivanAngel wrote:Considering a full grown cow can net over 1 grand and a good horse can net you many time more that.
Yah, that one puts me in a moral conundrum. I can't imagine why someone would enter your property just to start killing farm animals, but I guess it could happen. I would hope it would be some dumb kid with a .22 and the law would get there and show the kid the error of his ways, but I could see something like that getting very nasty, regardless of what the law says.
That, admittingly very unlikely, case would not be a matter of luxury goods or even a beloved pet, but that could seriously affect a man's ability to get by.
Kind of like taking 100k out of someone's retirement and burning it.
Well your an adult, you have the internet, you go do some research on protecting your home without firearms, you shouldn't need a teenager to describe to you that a gun isnt the only form of protection.
So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.
Well your an adult, you have the internet, you go do some research on protecting your home without firearms, you shouldn't need a teenager to describe to you that a gun isnt the only form of protection.
Sure, there are alarm systems, safe rooms, telephones, chemical spray, baseball bats, shotguns loaded with rock salt, etc.
I think you're statement sort of implies you can have one but none of the others. Why not have an alarm, and if someone has a gun for defense also thats their responsibility and business.
ShivanAngel wrote:Considering a full grown cow can net over 1 grand and a good horse can net you many time more that.
Yah, that one puts me in a moral conundrum. I can't imagine why someone would enter your property just to start killing farm animals, but I guess it could happen. I would hope it would be some dumb kid with a .22 and the law would get there and show the kid the error of his ways, but I could see something like that getting very nasty, regardless of what the law says.
That, admittingly very unlikely, case would not be a matter of luxury goods or even a beloved pet, but that could seriously affect a man's ability to get by.
Kind of like taking 100k out of someone's retirement and burning it.
I think thats two separate issues, although related.
Simple trespass with no harm is one issue. Trespass harming livestock or others fall into multiple categories, all of which will result in farmer Bob blowing your to hell.
I accept that people have a right to use tools. It is kind of in our nature, and what makes us capable of doing things. Personally I prefer not even thinking about personal protection, as you never know what can happen, and I have a much greater chance of being killed by a car with a bad driver than in a random shooting.
I don't need protection because I don't have enemies out to get me. However I have done some sport shooting picking bottles off a tree with my friend's old WW2 rifle and yeah it's a fun afternoon. Of course we weren't trying to shoot at anyone, but then again, neither was Dick 'the dick' Cheney when he blew half of his buddies face off (assumption... maybe he was trying to).
My take on guns is that everyone should have the right to have one, but everyone should also have the right to not feel they need one based on the propeganda of a paranoid society.
America is by nature a paranoid society. That is not an insult, just an observation. I can think of countless circumstances where guns have caused harm, and people's need to have one to feel safe have caused unnecessary injury or death. Just go to New York and ride the subway and you will see how suspicious everybody is of everybody else. Nobody talks to anybody, and there's 90 people in the subway car all too scared to just chat with a stranger, because they are scared the stranger might think they are crazy or dangerous and the stranger might have a gun.
It is not a healthy way of going about life being scared of everyone. I get myself in situations all the time where someoone may be beligerant or aggressive towards me and I think it is much easier to use common sense and rationality and use words instead of feeling threatened and feeling I need a deadly weapon. In some sense, I believe the use of a weapon to enfore your will is just cowardice. If you cannot get the results you want through violence, you are not being violent enough! That is not a mentality I believe we ought to live by.
Just the other day I heard this hick redneck at the local hole-in-wall bar bragging to his buddy that he "blasted a groundhog from his moving truck". Is this really something to be proud of? Sometimes I think maybe we've just seen too many action movies and grown up with John Wayne one-liners in our cultural identity.
Ultimately, ownership of any kind of weapon is kind of an act of cowardice and bad judgement. If human relations have to be reduced to an act of overbearing violence for people to get their way then we, as a whole, are just as bad as baboons. Nothing against baboons, they're just stupid and violent.
Most conversations can be resolved by communication. Being in a position where you feel you have to threaten someone with violence in order to "get your way" means you are simply not a good communicator.
Those "home security system" commercials further spread the paranoia of our culture, as did old rap videos, cowboy movies, war movies.
Yeah, I frequently have random guys in black masks smashing the window of my front door so they can get in and menace me, sure. Never happened to me before, but those commercials (probably written by the same people who sell you on 5 star safety ratings on the minivan you have to buy if you love your kids) seem to make it clear that the ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE SO YOU MUST BUY OUR PRODUCT TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
Maybe I'm naive and will end up getting gunned down for lack of personal defense, but I highly doubt it.
I own a wakazashi sword and a crowbar. The former I like because it is a work of art, which I have no intention of using on another person. The latter, I use it as a tool. It is, however not far from my mind that I could take someones skull apart if I needed to. Most people will never in their life need weapons. Shooting arrows at a target with a bow, or hunting for your own food, or pistol ranges can all be fun if that is the intention of ownership of the tool. Keeping it for paranoia purposes is becoming a product of the fear culture who sells it to you, and also causes violent acts to happens by making them in the first place.
Putting it in perspective though, if we didn't have guns we would use swords, if we didn't have swords we would use sticks, if we didn't have sticks we would use rocks... etc. The problem isn't the tool, just the engrained human condition encouraging dominance. Owning a gun is an act of saying "I WILL get my way or I can kill you". That's not an American problem, that's a human problem.
Frazzled wrote:So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.
I find it ironic that an adult is asking a teenager on how to protect his family without the use of a gun, or is the humour lost on some?
It really depends on how far you want to go with your home protection, we could go laminated polycarbonate for your windows [bullet resistant, stops up to 30 calibre if i remember correctly], Structural Grade 304 stainless steel doors [knife resistant and force resistant], safe room and many more ideas, but a simple google on your end would produce the same results.
I own a wakazashi sword and a crowbar. The former I like because it is a work of art, which I have no intention of using on another person. The latter, I use it as a tool. It is, however not far from my mind that I could take someones skull apart if I needed to.
Son, you've just taken your first step into a larger universe. There are at least 3 zombie threads going, with your name on them. Welcome to the Zombie Games!
Frazzled wrote:So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.
I find it ironic that an adult is asking a teenager on how to protect his family without the use of a gun, or is the humour lost on some?
I think I see your confusion, Squig_herder. We are not talking about ways of securing your home- that's more in the Zombie Attack! thread. We're talking about what your options are if someone is inside your house, having broken through whatever passive defenses that you have in place.
If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.
So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?
Frazzled wrote:So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.
I find it ironic that an adult is asking a teenager on how to protect his family without the use of a gun, or is the humour lost on some?
It really depends on how far you want to go with your home protection, we could go laminated polycarbonate for your windows [bullet resistant, stops up to 30 calibre if i remember correctly], Structural Grade 304 stainless steel doors [knife resistant and force resistant], safe room and many more ideas, but a simple google on your end would produce the same results.
1. You brought the point up.
2. So a person who isn't made of money to James Bondize their house is SOL? I'll keep my firearms and my opinion then thanks.
If you have access to firearms then you should avail yourself of them for protective purposes.
ShivanAngel wrote:Considering a full grown cow can net over 1 grand and a good horse can net you many time more that.
Yah, that one puts me in a moral conundrum. I can't imagine why someone would enter your property just to start killing farm animals, but I guess it could happen. I would hope it would be some dumb kid with a .22 and the law would get there and show the kid the error of his ways, but I could see something like that getting very nasty, regardless of what the law says.
That, admittingly very unlikely, case would not be a matter of luxury goods or even a beloved pet, but that could seriously affect a man's ability to get by.
Kind of like taking 100k out of someone's retirement and burning it.
You would be surprised how often it happens, you go to the farm to check on things and theres a dead cow with a bullet hole or 10 in it. Some people are just crazy.
Frazzled wrote:So the answer to how a woman is going to protect herself and her kids is "I don't have a clue." Gotcha.
I find it ironic that an adult is asking a teenager on how to protect his family without the use of a gun, or is the humour lost on some?
I think I see your confusion, Squig_herder. We are not talking about ways of securing your home- that's more in the Zombie Attack! thread. We're talking about what your options are if someone is inside your house, having broken through whatever passive defenses that you have in place.
If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.
So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?
And note the query back is what is woman with kids to do, not someone who has delusions of being a Ninja/Pirate.
Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.
So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?
I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.
As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"
Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:1. You brought the point up.
2. So a person who isn't made of money to James Bondize their house is SOL? I'll keep my firearms and my opinion then thanks.
If you have access to firearms then you should avail yourself of them for protective purposes.
Yes that I did, forgive me for being for forthcoming, I didn't mean it as a personal afront
You do choose the firearms for economic reasons?
I have access to fire at my house, but I would not use them to deter someone off our property
Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.
So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?
I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.
As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"
Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].
Ah. My apologies, it seemed you were approaching a very different scenario than the one being discussed. Prevention is all fine and good, but every fortress has its weak point. The downside of every defensive measure is that given enough time, it can be defeated.
Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.
Gitzbitah wrote:If you walk into the middle of a 13+ page thread and declare a response childish, be prepared to offer alternatives. That's called a conversation.
So, someone has broken into your home, against the odds, and through your space-age security materials- what now?
I have been following this thread from the start, I am not blind nor ignorant of the thread and its contents.
As the odd adage goes: "prevention is better than a cure"
Reason and negotiation are the strongest weapons against people invading your home. Guns will only provoke a response, and if they too are armed then you are only asking for someone it pull the trigger. A stray bullet from either of the two parties during the show down can result in death and later further charges [depending on who won].
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:1. You brought the point up.
2. So a person who isn't made of money to James Bondize their house is SOL? I'll keep my firearms and my opinion then thanks.
If you have access to firearms then you should avail yourself of them for protective purposes.
Yes that I did, forgive me for being for forthcoming, I didn't mean it as a personal afront
You do choose the firearms for economic reasons?
I have access to fire at my house, but I would not use them to deter someone off our property
Nor would I, thats nonsensical. You brought up the point that "this is how Australians feel about the US" really? I missed the polling.
Then you made the statement there are other options but YOU HAVE YET TO PUT ONE UP. That speaks volumes.
EDIT: I realized I am get snarky. I apologize. I go from zero to CRYHAVOCANDLETTHESLAUGHTERBEGIN!!! the moment I think about the safety of Wife/Kids/Doggies.
Trasvi wrote:I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.
The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.
Number one, you're assuming all "gun lovers" are using their arms for defense, and that they agree on castle doctrine. As you can see from my posts, that isnt necessarily true.
Furthermore, if they made every firearm illegal in the US tomorrow, they wouldn't disappear. Firearms have always been present in the US, and there were no national laws regulating them until 1935, and none with any real impact for most people until 1969. I don't know if there is any proof those laws initiated a drop in crime, or even gun crime. I think people are going to have to have community values if there is going to be a drop in such things.
My understanding is that you can still get a gun in Australia, though they've gotten more restrictive as of late.
Most importantly, why should I have to surrender my pistol that I enjoy shooting because of someone else doing something wrong?
It is not illegal to have guns in Australia. One must provide a valid reason, which self-defence is not. You must be registered for a gun, and there are specific laws about where and how you can store it (in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition in a separate location).
I can possibly see that some people enjoy shooting pistols or rifles as sport/hunting. Where are semi-automatics, sub-machine guns etc even remotely useful? These weapons were banned and over 700000 of them destroyed in Australia, and since then gun-related homicides have fallen by over 50%. Now in Australia only 16% of homicides are caused by guns, compared to 65% in the US. By far the majority of gun-related deaths in Australia are suicides. The reality is that removing guns, or at least limiting their access, was extremely successful at reducing death rates.
Now if you want to use your rifle for hunting, or sport shooting - then sure, why not? But if more restriction can be shown to have such a huge effect, can you really oppose it for the sake of a sport?
Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.
Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?
Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.
Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?
Trespassers and stalkers can absolutely be handled by the local law. They're outside of your home, and no immediate threat to you.
If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.
Gitzbitah wrote:Am I to understand that if someone cut their way through your high-tech armored windows and was prowling around inside your house at 2AM, your response would be to politely ask them to leave and explain that it isn't worth their trouble? You may have an excellent case, since your safeguards cost more than the rest of the house, but somehow I doubt that the average home invader is going to be impressed by your rhetoric and logic.
Local law enforcement can deal with trespassers and stalkers, do you not trust the arm of the law in your region?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Gitzbitah wrote: If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.
If you were to pull a gun on the said home invader, would that really help? If he too is armed with a gun and decides to draw it, what would happen then? You only increase the risk of harm to occupants of the building by bring larger risks into the equation
ShivanAngel wrote:No matter how strong i make my walls, this donkey-cave keeps ruining them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Squig_herder wrote:
Gitzbitah wrote: If there is someone in the house with me, I don't think waiting for them and hoping the home invader will leave me alone until they get there is the safest course of action for everyone in the home. Of the 5 rooms in my house, 2 are occupied bedrooms. You could carefully search all of the rooms in under 5 minutes, which I imagine is less than the response time of local law enforcement. In all fairness, I've never had a reason to call them and don't know how quickly they would respond.
If you were to pull a gun on the said home invader, would that really help? If he too is armed with a gun and decides to draw it, what would happen then? You only increase the risk of harm to occupants of the building by bring larger risks into the equation
Ancient Budha say "It is better to have a gun and be equal to the armed intruder, then not and be at his mercy."
There's the difference of our opinions. I tend to view an intruder with a gun on the loose as more of a threat than a confrontation.
Pulling a gun wouldn't help at all. Firing a gun at him would. The bullet's the key part in this equation.
You are quite correct that giving him the chance to respond is far too risky. That's why I advocate taking his intrusion as proof of guilt, and firing without warning until such time as you are sure that the threat is neutralized. Then, put one more in the intruder to be on the safe side and see if this intruder has survived his or her ordeal.
This is something that's been on my mind a lot in the past few months. Between this thread and a story in my local paper, it's also an issue that seems to be coming up a lot in public discourse. I've never owned or even fired a gun although I am beginning to strongly consider it. My girlfriend and I have been talking about taking some lessons at the range near my house, which sounds like a good start.
I live in a large US city with a fairly high crime rate, but in the ten years I've been here I've only had or or two occasions where I've even felt remotely threatened, to be honest. I think my interest in gun ownership is probably 90% ideological, which I suppose is further anecdotal evidence of America's gun culture.
Just to shake up the pot, I should mention that I'm left-leaning on almost every political issue, although I consider myself an independent (for whatever that's worth). If we got into a political discussion I'm pretty sure I'd be considered a liberal.
Guitardian wrote:I accept that people have a right to use tools. It is kind of in our nature, and what makes us capable of doing things. Personally I prefer not even thinking about personal protection, as you never know what can happen, and I have a much greater chance of being killed by a car with a bad driver than in a random shooting.
I don't need protection because I don't have enemies out to get me. However I have done some sport shooting picking bottles off a tree with my friend's old WW2 rifle and yeah it's a fun afternoon. Of course we weren't trying to shoot at anyone, but then again, neither was Dick 'the dick' Cheney when he blew half of his buddies face off (assumption... maybe he was trying to).
My take on guns is that everyone should have the right to have one, but everyone should also have the right to not feel they need one based on the propeganda of a paranoid society.
It is not a healthy way of going about life being scared of everyone. I get myself in situations all the time where someoone may be beligerant or aggressive towards me and I think it is much easier to use common sense and rationality and use words instead of feeling threatened and feeling I need a deadly weapon. In some sense, I believe the use of a weapon to enfore your will is just cowardice. If you cannot get the results you want through violence, you are not being violent enough! That is not a mentality I believe we ought to live by.
I don't understand how you can rationalize with anyone who has broken into your house, and I don't see how self defence is cowardice nor that it has anything to do with what we're talking about. I admit that we live in a culture of unreasonable fear though.
Guitardian wrote:
Just the other day I heard this hick redneck at the local hole-in-wall bar bragging to his buddy that he "blasted a groundhog from his moving truck". Is this really something to be proud of? Sometimes I think maybe we've just seen too many action movies and grown up with John Wayne one-liners in our cultural identity.
Well, I think I've heard everything I need to know about your point of view when you describe someone as a "hick redneck" at a local "hole in the wall" bar. Since you were presumably patronizing the very same bar, how are you any better? I bet you started rolling the reasons through your mind that you were better educated and smarter than this individual. Probably made more money and bathed more often too. Are you really that insecure? Furthermore, at least in my state, hunting from a vehicle or shooting across the road is illegal and enforced.
Guitardian wrote:
Ultimately, ownership of any kind of weapon is kind of an act of cowardice and bad judgement. If human relations have to be reduced to an act of overbearing violence for people to get their way then we, as a whole, are just as bad as baboons. Nothing against baboons, they're just stupid and violent.
Most conversations can be resolved by communication. Being in a position where you feel you have to threaten someone with violence in order to "get your way" means you are simply not a good communicator.
Am I a coward and exhibiting bad judgment because I own a hunting rifle, a shotgun, and some pistols and like to hunt, shoot trap, and practice target shooting? Where is the cowardice there?
If someone pulls a knife on someone you should be obligated to talk to them instead of run or use a weapon to defend yourself?
Guitardian wrote:
Those "home security system" commercials further spread the paranoia of our culture, as did old rap videos, cowboy movies, war movies.
So if ADT sells a security system they're playing on paranoia? Someone who owns an alarm system is automatically paranoid? Are people in Europe who have security systems more or less paranoid than Americans? Do they live in a culture of fear too or do you just need to make sure everyone around you knows how much more clear thinking you are than the average redneck American. Why don't you add video games to your crap-list and you can be just like Jack Thompson
Guitardian wrote:
Yeah, I frequently have random guys in black masks smashing the window of my front door so they can get in and menace me, sure. Never happened to me before, but those commercials (probably written by the same people who sell you on 5 star safety ratings on the minivan you have to buy if you love your kids) seem to make it clear that the ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE SO YOU MUST BUY OUR PRODUCT TO DEFEND YOURSELF.
Anything making a claim that it keeps you safe must be a conspiracy to sell more products. Then again, maybe it is, I mean, if I paid an engineer to make my car I was selling safe, shouldn't I tell you? Also, I'm sure all of us see gun commercials on TV all the time telling us we have to buy a .40 Smith to be safe. ( Have you ever seen a commercial for a firearm that wasn't on a hunting show????? Come on.
Guitardian wrote:
I own a wakazashi sword and a crowbar. The former I like because it is a work of art, which I have no intention of using on another person. The latter, I use it as a tool. It is, however not far from my mind that I could take someones skull apart if I needed to. Most people will never in their life need weapons. Shooting arrows at a target with a bow, or hunting for your own food, or pistol ranges can all be fun if that is the intention of ownership of the tool. Keeping it for paranoia purposes is becoming a product of the fear culture who sells it to you, and also causes violent acts to happens by making them in the first place.
Well, I own some handguns because I think they're fun to shoot and interesting to work on. We both own a weapon we enjoy. Good for you. By the way, what exactly is a paranoia purpose? Furthermore you said earlier in the thread that owning a weapon is an act of cowardice. We're not talking out of both sides of our mouth, are we? If I assume a paranoia purpose is carrying a weapon for self defense, then are you saying that everyone who carries something to defend themselves is paranoid? What about a redneck? I'm not sure, you need to clarify that.
Guitardian wrote:
Putting it in perspective though, if we didn't have guns we would use swords, if we didn't have swords we would use sticks, if we didn't have sticks we would use rocks... etc. The problem isn't the tool, just the engrained human condition encouraging dominance. Owning a gun is an act of saying "I WILL get my way or I can kill you". That's not an American problem, that's a human problem.
Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".
More important, what was the entire point of that statement?
I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind.
Trasvi wrote:
Grignard wrote:
Trasvi wrote:I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.
The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.
Number one, you're assuming all "gun lovers" are using their arms for defense, and that they agree on castle doctrine. As you can see from my posts, that isnt necessarily true.
Furthermore, if they made every firearm illegal in the US tomorrow, they wouldn't disappear. Firearms have always been present in the US, and there were no national laws regulating them until 1935, and none with any real impact for most people until 1969. I don't know if there is any proof those laws initiated a drop in crime, or even gun crime. I think people are going to have to have community values if there is going to be a drop in such things.
My understanding is that you can still get a gun in Australia, though they've gotten more restrictive as of late.
Most importantly, why should I have to surrender my pistol that I enjoy shooting because of someone else doing something wrong?
It is not illegal to have guns in Australia. One must provide a valid reason, which self-defence is not. You must be registered for a gun, and there are specific laws about where and how you can store it (in a safe, unloaded, with ammunition in a separate location).
I can possibly see that some people enjoy shooting pistols or rifles as sport/hunting. Where are semi-automatics, sub-machine guns etc even remotely useful? These weapons were banned and over 700000 of them destroyed in Australia, and since then gun-related homicides have fallen by over 50%. Now in Australia only 16% of homicides are caused by guns, compared to 65% in the US. By far the majority of gun-related deaths in Australia are suicides. The reality is that removing guns, or at least limiting their access, was extremely successful at reducing death rates.
Now if you want to use your rifle for hunting, or sport shooting - then sure, why not? But if more restriction can be shown to have such a huge effect, can you really oppose it for the sake of a sport?
I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.
"Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".
--well if someone had a gun I guess I would have to go and get them a burger wouldn't I? If they didn't have a gun I would just have to laugh and say "get your own burger"
More important, what was the entire point of that statement?
"I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind. "
---arent we full of our own centrism? Yes I must obviously be the dumbest person on the website because the OP asked what people's opinions on guns in America were and I explained my opinion from my point of view, from what I have seen. Do I have to have a gun to express my opinion? Perhaps so. If I had one, I would kill you for calling me dumb... well if you didn't kill me first. Insult slinging on the internet is kind of pointless, as are death threats and, well, anything besides sharing thoughts and ideas. Are mine so worthless to you? I suppose so. That's okay.
Listen to yourself 'centrist'! I was not condescending! (well redneck hick part... but he wasn't hunting, he was just driving around shooting for roadkills... and yes I will condescend down on such behavior) Perhaps he smells better or makes more money because he uses Ax Body Spray or something I don't know, didn't check, don't see why that is even a point to try and point out.
On a purely philosophical level, I maintain my stance that ownership of a weapon as an armament instead of a tool/recreation is an indication of what is wrong with our human condition, not just an 'American' obsession. On a realistic level if it's life or death I, like any one else, will grab whatever I can find and throw it as hard as I can or swing it, or whatever. I don't understand your need to be attacking, but then again maybe that's why I don't understand the percieved need for guns either.
Logic equation part 1: If you don't have one I don't need one
part 2: If you DO have one and I don't, I have to get you a burger
I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.
Find me a non-automatic target .22 pistol under $2,000...
"Thats right. When I'm at the range with friends, hunting, or just discussing firearms I own, what I'm REALLY saying is "Better do what I want, or I'll kill you! Yep, gotta go grab me a burger at the take out, or I'm going to kill you".
--well if someone had a gun I guess I would have to go and get them a burger wouldn't I? If they didn't have a gun I would just have to laugh and say "get your own burger"
What? I'm not sure I understand. You're presuming that if someone has a tool they're going to use it for a purpose that *you* think they are going to use it. No, if I had a gun and told you to get me a burger, you could still say no get your own and we'd laugh about it. If someone else were to kill you over that, they'd be going to jail. I don't see how a gun necessitates that the owner is going to make demands. Owning a gun doesn't put you above the law.
Guitardian wrote:
More important, what was the entire point of that statement?
"I apologize to my fellow Dakkaites. Usually I attempt to be the voice of reason and the centrist viewpoint, but I'm just blown away here by this one. I absolutely have to know how the dumbest poster I have met so far on Dakka can be simultaneously one of the most insulting, condescending, and pedantic posters. It boggles the mind. "
---arent we full of our own centrism? Yes I must obviously be the dumbest person on the website because the OP asked what people's opinions on guns in America were and I explained my opinion from my point of view, from what I have seen. Do I have to have a gun to express my opinion? Perhaps so. If I had one, I would kill you for calling me dumb... well if you didn't kill me first. Insult slinging on the internet is kind of pointless, as are death threats and, well, anything besides sharing thoughts and ideas. Are mine so worthless to you? I suppose so. That's okay.
I'm sorry, but the only thing I understood about that statement was A. You feel that you were expressing your opinion on the OP's topic B. Insulting someone over the internet is pointless C. You think your opinions are worthless to me.
For A, this has gone off topic a long time ago. B. You're the one that started insulting people and now you're back-pedaling and saying it's pointless to insult people over the internet. C. My statement had nothing to do with your opinions. I have disagreed with Fraz, Gitz, Squig_herder, and several others in this thread alone. There isn't anything wrong with them, they just have different opinions. The problem wasn't opinions it was douchebaggery, on your part.
Guitardian wrote:
Listen to yourself 'centrist'! I was not condescending! (well redneck hick part... but he wasn't hunting, he was just driving around shooting for roadkills... and yes I will condescend down on such behavior) Perhaps he smells better or makes more money because he uses Ax Body Spray or something I don't know, didn't check, don't see why that is even a point to try and point out.
On a purely philosophical level, I maintain my stance that ownership of a weapon as an armament instead of a tool/recreation is an indication of what is wrong with our human condition, not just an 'American' obsession. On a realistic level if it's life or death I, like any one else, will grab whatever I can find and throw it as hard as I can or swing it, or whatever. I don't understand your need to be attacking, but then again maybe that's why I don't understand the percieved need for guns either.
Yes, you were condescending. The use of the term redneck hick and your tone was condescending. You can say an American flag is not red white and blue, but rather green, yellow, and orange, but saying it won't make it so. What I was pointing out that was that by your choice of words you thought you were better than a certain demographic and that it is my opinion that you use that to boost self worth. The term redneck hick has nothing to do with this individual's criminal activity, nor does it have anything to do with firearms, really.
I don't have a "need" for a gun. Its something I have, thats all. Also, your philosophical point is overly pessimistic and unsubstantiated.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I would go and get the burger for them, but I would get my own back and stick a bogie in it.
How the hell are you able to go crazy at a gun range for 29 minutes...
Its the onion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
I don't question why my semi-automatic pistol is useful. I enjoy shooting it. Who are you to tell me what I should enjoy shooting and what is just "not remotely useful". Thats very condescending. Do you have any data to back up what you're saying? Incidentally, the majority of firearms deaths in the US are also suicides, not homicide. You might view that as a reason to limit firearms, but I view it as a choice.
Find me a non-automatic target .22 pistol under $2,000...
I think you could probably find a revolver in .22 for less than that. For what it is worth.
Grignard wrote:
I have disagreed with Fraz, Gitz, Squig_herder, and several others in this thread alone. There isn't anything wrong with them, they just have different opinions.
Only on some things. We are in perfect agreement about the weird mixed messages that Guitardian is putting out.
Owning guns is a negative reflection on the human condition, but if I had one I would shoot you for arguing with me? I don't follow your logic, Guitardian.
This post was edited to ameliorate my irascible remarks. My apologies to any offended parties.
Chicks in camo bikinis with huge machineguns are like the hottest thing EVER! Gun's and Ammo seems to think so given some of their cover photos. Soldier of Fortune likewise.
Of course my posts are paradoxical, it's a contradictory subject. We need guns (allegedly) to defend our (alleged) freedom, but those same guns allow us to impose our will upon others. If someone kills me with a gun and winds up in jail for it, I am still no less dead. Sucks for me, but at least the last thought as I bleed out could be "that guy has to put up with three hots and a cot at taxpayers expense... sucks for him... oh wait... I'm dying in a minute or so... sucks for me that he had one in the first place"
I'd feel dead I guess. A bycicle chain is not intended to beat things with though, it's intended to ride around. A gun has no purpose but to shoot things/people and no alterior purpose other than that. Well I guess if you count pistol whipping I guess it has a bonus use.
So after reading through various pages playing catchup....
Squig_herder wrote:
Frazzled wrote:So what would you do brainicac?
Well your an adult, you have the internet, you go do some research on protecting your home without firearms, you shouldn't need a teenager to describe to you that a gun isnt the only form of protection.
However, guns are by far the most effective form of home protection. And Following Alphs example... here are some pics of chicks with guns:
Annnnnd to finish this off... for your viewing pleasure... my avatar in all her glory!
We like guns here in America because it is a symbol of our history. We have become a great nation by fighting the fight and working harder than any other nation has to build up the capital of freedom. Plus, we cling to our guns for self defense. Outlawing them has been proven to raise crime rate, as law abiding citizens don't have guns to protect themselves, and criminals get guns on the black market. By the way, people pull the trigger. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Unlike most other people, I have some sources to back me up. If you disregard these I have more.
BlutEisenRegel wrote:Outlawing them has been proven to raise crime rate
Do you actually understand what the word proven means? I'd guess no. What you've linked hardly constitutes proof for the statement "Outlawing guns raises crime". The only actual data you've linked at best says "Our finding is that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that increased gun control results in lowering deaths". Which is nowhere near the being in the league of proof that outlawing guns raises crime. Hell it's not even on the same planet.
We have become a great nation by fighting the fight and working harder than any other nation has to build up the capital of freedom.
1. So because I am patriotic I buy into propaganda?
2. Tell me where this "propaganda" is?
3. You quoted something and told me absolutely nothing about where you found this information.
Its seems like you just went to one of the sites, found that a section of it fit your ideas, and quoted it, afraid to tell me where it is from and decided to hide behind quotes.
Lastly, can you READ? Look at the ing sites I showed you! They all say the same thing! Banning guns increases crime rate! Stop avoiding my concrete ideas and start looking at the facts. Gosh, 'propaganda'? you make me laugh.
America isn't the "capital of freedom"
The peoples of other nations have struggled just as hard if not harder (and certainly longer in some cases) to get where they are today.
Your first link is the only one with any real data in it. It contains no proof gun control raises crime (the study isn't even about guns and crime in general, about it's about guns and death in general, murder and suicide specifically) I basically just paraphrased their conclusions section in my post.
Your second link is just a short article that references the first link. That does not magically establish proof.
Your third link is an opinion piece that uses anecdotal evidence and doesn't' even cite its sources. Not proof.
Your fourth link is another opinion piece that doesn't cite its sources. Not Proof.
I'm not saying gun control raises crime, and I'm saying it not lowers crime, I'm not saying it has no affect on crime. What I'm saying is what you've linked isn't proof for anything. Certainly not a claim as big as "Outlawing guns raises crime".
I believe what the OP was asking was not whether or not gun control was right or wrong, but why it is such a big deal here in the United Statesia. We cannot condemn gun ownership, because guns exist and that's just the way the world is. If someone else needs one I need one too? That's where the lines start getting fuzzy. How is it that other cultures are capable of staying civil without guns, while we feel it is a necessity.
I have had a gun/guns pointed at me on four different occasions in my life and have a scar from a ricochet that had nothing to do with me. I can honestly say that in none of these situations did I feel that having a gun on me would have been at all constructive.
The worst one was when some random kid on a bus called 911 on his cellphone because he saw the handle of a pellet gun poking out of my coat, that I was just returning to my friend because she left it at my place. 15 SWAT guys with various M16 looking things... If I hadn't had the calmness to stay very still and say "be nice, no problem here" and instead made one slightly quick move the trigger happy rookie would probably have filled me with holes. I didn't even have a gun. I had what they thought was a gun, and suddenly that created a potentially horrible situation, which fortunately (well for me any way) did not result in a mistaken shooting.
I have proof that in Australia, gun control has lowered homicide rates, and especially gun-related deaths. Most petty criminals (the type that would break into your home) are not able to obtain a gun.
By allowing everyone to have a gun, you have effectively established the need for everyone to have a gun to 'protect themselves'. If a burglar doesn't have a gun, you don't need one either. But when you allow guns, you start an arms race where first the burglar gets a gun, then you get a gun, then he gets a bigger gun... Perhaps it is not so much the number of guns present in America that causes the homicide rate, but rather the mentality that everyone is allowed to (and therefore must have) a gun.
There are still gun-related deaths in Australia. 90% of those are guns from the black market, generally in the hands of more organised criminals.
And the very idea that the purpose of a firearm is not for killing is ridiculous. You may have turned it to another use, but guns were invented to kill people.
I read through the Harvard study, and it seems to me that they decided on the point they wanted to make and then found evidence to prove it; there is not really a large amount of discussion on social/economic factors that contribute to crime rate. For an economically and socially 'stable' country, America's homicide rate is pretty bad. For example, they cite the Russian murder rate as many times higher than the US, neglecting the social conditions at the time resulting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the economic downturns associated with that; Homicide peaked between 1995 and 2000 and has consistently fallen to a total of 46% since the data shown in that report; the US homicide rate has stayed roughly the same. I guess that with any pro-gun writing, like pro-smoking propaganda, I take it with a grain of salt.
I would also like to say on home security, and the fictional example of 'a gang being in your house at 3 in the morning'...
If you have decent perimeter security - grates, rollers or sensors on your windows and doors - why are gangs in your house at all? Perimeter security is supposed to be a deterrent - potential burglars take a look at your house, decide its too difficult, and go next door. If someone does have the time and effort to break through your security without giving you at least a minutes warning, then you're screwed no matter how big a gun you have in your closet.
Who are these 'gangs' we all fear in the first place? Why these strange lurking imaginary people would be lurking around your house at 3:00 in the morning? Maybe you owe them drug money or something? I've lived in some HOODS in the past and never once felt threatened by the 'gangs' who are portrayed on TV as some kind of goblin or zombie type of tribe. People belong to gangs, they're called the ARMY and the COPS too. Better armed than you, but unless given a reason, they don't threaten you. Their violence usually just extends to other gangs, they never bothered me because I was no concern of theirs.
Guitardian wrote:Why these strange lurking imaginary people would be lurking around your house at 3:00 in the morning?.
I dunno.. maybe to rob you of everything you own comes to mind.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe you owe them drug money or something?.
Or maybe they are looking for stuff to pawn for drug money. That is what they tend to do.
Guitardian wrote: I've lived in some HOODS in the past and never once felt threatened by the 'gangs' who are portrayed on TV as some kind of goblin or zombie type of tribe. .
Goblin or Zombie?? What Tv channel are you watching?
Guitardian wrote:People belong to gangs, they're called the ARMY and the COPS too. Better armed than you, but unless given a reason, they don't threaten you..
Really..........REALLY?!? You are going to compare Bloods and Crypts or the KKK to the Marine Corp or State Troopers? Sorry, but this just proves that your ideas are OTT and thus should be discarded for the load of hot air that they really are.
Tilean Bastard wrote:I may be a troll, but it is a good question!
At least you admit to being one. And no, it isn't a good question. What it is, is a sad jibe directed at the topic on hand in an attempt to provoke other users.
You ever been harrassed unnecessarily by a cop, jp400?
I have.
I have not ever been harassed by a Blood or a Cryp though. My ideas come from experience and therefore are not over-the-top
'gangs' do not randomly break into houses to steal stuff they can sell for drugs. They sell drugs in certain controlled neighborhoods. There is no gang of little black dudes out back wanting your dvd player. Stuff gets stolen by people you know more often than not. Just because a 'gang' is nearby doesn't mean you have to have a problem.
And yeah, I've met some donkey-cave bully cops in my time and I DO equate them. Marines not so much (except when drunk and home on leave)
Or maybe they are looking for stuff to pawn for drug money. That is what they tend to do.
No. That's not what gangs do. That's what desperate addicts acting as individuals tend to do. Gangs, at least the criminal sort you'd expect to be heavily armed are businesses. Frankly breaking into random houses so they can grab some of grandma's hummels and bring them down to the pawn shop is beneath them. Now breaking into houses that are being used to store drugs, or that are serving as a base of operations for a competing organization are certainly fair game.
Your average "Gang" has zero interest in terrorizing randoms.It doesn't make money and just draws attention from law enforcement. Sometimes they make a mistake and go for the wrong house but that tends to be the exception rather than rule, as you can't be that sloppy and actually survive for any amount of time. Non gang members who get hurt by gangs are (as far as I'm aware) most often either bystanders who get hurt because they don't care much about collateral damage or people who have friends/family members with them who are in gangs and have stirred up trouble.
Guitardian wrote:You ever been harrassed unnecessarily by a cop, jp400?
I have.
Nope. Never have. Why? I can only assume that it is because I follow the law. I also am on a first name bases with about 40 Officers from various agencies and everyone ive ever talked to have all told me the same thing. Unless you are doing something that sends off a red flag, you have nothing to worry about outside of normal police work.
Guitardian wrote:'gangs' do not randomly break into houses to steal stuff they can sell for drugs. There is no gang of little black dudes out back wanting your dvd player.
jp400 wrote:
@ Chongara: See the above. They point to the opposite of what you are saying.
I'd say only the Dallasnews article really points at a concerted gang effort at victimizing homeowners and it does so clearly.
The rest were guys with "Gang Affiliations" or other really wish-washy terms that don't really paint them as agents of an organization. Which is an important distinction, since gang members (like any other individual) can go off and commit a crime with a few associates regardless of if their gang status.
I'm certainly no expert on criminal trends or law, so my impressions could certainly be incorrect. However that series of links at least, hasn't really changed them. Schemes like the ones those guys were running just seems to scream "Catch us, Prosecute us". I'd genuinely be surprised if it was a trend.
That being said if Gangs as organized groups are in fact invading homes en masse. I rather doubt the effectiveness of a single (or even) pair of homeowners against a team of armed intruders who are presumably part of some organized effort.
Guitardian wrote:You ever been harrassed unnecessarily by a cop, jp400?
I have.
Nope. Never have. Why? I can only assume that it is because I follow the law. I also am on a first name bases with about 40 Officers from various agencies and everyone ive ever talked to have all told me the same thing. Unless you are doing something that sends off a red flag, you have nothing to worry about outside of normal police work.
Guitardian wrote:'gangs' do not randomly break into houses to steal stuff they can sell for drugs. There is no gang of little black dudes out back wanting your dvd player.
Need I continue? I could post this kind of stuff all night and STILL would not scratch the surface of it.
@ Chongara: See the above. They point to the opposite of what you are saying.
Yeah I don't break the law either. I do have long hair and I am not from around here in podunk town though, maybe that's the difference of why I can be harrassed by donkey-caves and you KNOW 40 NAME DROPS to get you out of trouble.
There is no gang of little black dudes out back wanting your dvd player. Stuff gets stolen by people you know more often than not. Just because a 'gang' is nearby doesn't mean you have to have a problem.
There's elements of both truth and falsehood in this...
On one hand, you're totally right, a lot of crimes are by people that the victim knows. I don't know the exact figures (nobody does), but it's certainly way higher than the "mugged by a random black guy" stereotype.
From there, even if you're talking about "gangs of little black dudes" they do exist, they do commit crimes, but typically they're doing it to other "little black dudes." More of the "it's often somebody you know" effect. So it's not like they go off to all white neighborhoods to do violence and thievery.
That said, you can't just parade around the whole of the USA with the assumption that you won't ever run into a "gang" or criminals, or whatever. If you live near the projects, and you park your car near the projects, eventually it's going to get broken into. Period.
So, yeah, it's not like there's black gangsters running through the upper middle class suburbs, day in day out. It's not like that at all. But that doesn't mean it's not very easy to be doing reasonable things, and run into drama. If you live in a major city, eventually you will have to deal with somebody who wants to do wrong to you, and more often than not, they'll be some sort of "gangster." That's just the element in charge of that sort of crime.
Your average "Gang" has zero interest in terrorizing randoms.
That's not true. Most gangs are actually pretty low budget, just kids with no positive structure to keep them right. They love to terrorize people, somewhat at random, but mostly within the context of their local political situation. They're looking for rival gangs, etc. etc. So they certainly terrorize randoms, but again, it's not like they go off into totally different areas of the state to do it.
It's quite sensible to be scared of them.
Or, at least, respectful...
I do agree, there's a certain amount of pushback from gun owners on this front, but the fact is, a gun owner knows as well as anybody, a gun is a greater threat than a knife. Not that a knife isn't bad too, but a gun is far, far more of a threat.
I think there is an irrational fear of guns out there, but it's not irrational to be afraid of them.
Hell, I'm a pretty experienced gun owner. I've shot a LOT of guns, I know how to handle one in self defense, I own a lot... I've still been in situations where I was legitimately scared of what other gun owners were doing, and didn't feel safe.
I have a couple AR-15s, and I also have a .22 conversion kit for them. It's a device that fits inside the gun and lets you shoot .22 (extremely inexpensive) through it.
I was showing it to a friend. Before giving it to him to look at, I cycled the action about three times, pointed it at the wall, and pulled the trigger. Bang.
Apparently the extractor failed to extract a live round 3 times, then it fired.
The .22 went through the wall, and then appeared to lodge itself in an attached shed. Major relief that it stopped in the house. Also that it missed friend's girlfriend, who was near the muzzle.
On one level, this was really a malfuntion, more than anything, but it still could be avoided. I've since refined my gun handling technique to include proper visual/tactile chamber checks, but it just goes to show, guns are never to be considered "safe."
That's not true. Most gangs are actually pretty low budget, just kids with no positive structure to keep them right. They love to terrorize people, somewhat at random, but mostly within the context of their local political situation. They're looking for rival gangs, etc. etc. So they certainly terrorize randoms, but again, it's not like they go off into totally different areas of the state to do it.
"Randoms" as I was using it in the in the previous sentence was meant as "Arbitrary people outside their local political situation". That is to say people with no gang affiliations of their own, and without close personal connections to people with gang affiliations. Usually (again as I understand it) they're not horrible at finding the targets they're looking for, that is rival gang members and those connected to them. Because whenever kids and grandparents start turning up dead, community outrage starts to kicks with extra force. Outside forces usually seem pretty content (at least relatively) to "let them be" so long as they're only killing each other.
Guitardian wrote:You ever been harrassed unnecessarily by a cop, jp400?
I have.
Nope. Never have. Why? I can only assume that it is because I follow the law. I also am on a first name bases with about 40 Officers from various agencies and everyone ive ever talked to have all told me the same thing. Unless you are doing something that sends off a red flag, you have nothing to worry about outside of normal police work.
Guitardian wrote:'gangs' do not randomly break into houses to steal stuff they can sell for drugs. There is no gang of little black dudes out back wanting your dvd player.
Need I continue? I could post this kind of stuff all night and STILL would not scratch the surface of it.
@ Chongara: See the above. They point to the opposite of what you are saying.
Yeah I don't break the law either. I do have long hair and I am not from around here in podunk town though, maybe that's the difference of why I can be harrassed by donkey-caves and you KNOW 40 NAME DROPS to get you out of trouble.
See, this is where you and I appear to differ. I don't need to drop names... mainly cause I don't ever need to. If I am driving down the road, and a black and white pulls up behind me and I see him running my plates in the rear view I don't get all pissed off cause Adam 12 is harassing me. I see my tax money hard at work and wave as he pulls around me to run the plates on the next guy.
And when I do get pulled over for something stupid, I'm man enough to know that I have nobody to blame but myself.
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"No Sir?"
*From the Right Seat comes a female voice*
"Hi Dad...."
Cops are people just like everyone else. And if you walk around with the "fething Pig" attitude (which you are comming across as haveing) I can see why they would stop and give you a second once over and I can't blame them for doing so.
This video comes to mind:
**WARNING.. slight/mild language ahead!**
@ Phryxis:
That sounds like faulty hardware. I would have contacted the manufacturer about that and demanded a refund.
That's a nice poem... "Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot" is one of the first things they drill into you at Boot Camp.
By the way, Killkrazy, I agree that it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. Neither object is a danger without the intent to kill though, that's the main point I was making.
Yes, accidents happen but nowhere near the scale of people that are harmed by the negligent operation of cars! It's a dangerous world.
I am far more frightened of drivers than I am frightened of gun owners. Here's the difference: Gun owners are aware that firing their weapon is a responsibility, and that if it kills someone there are consequences they cannot deny. Car owners can plow through a school bus stop and just say "oops my bad I wasn't paying attention.", while there's a bunch of dead and injured children all over the road. Vehicular manslaughter is not treated as harshly as murder in out court system.
@jp400 I do have that "fething pigs" attitude to an extent. While I recognize they are just people, and some of them are good people. I am suspicious and scared of them because I have in the past been unfairly treated by them while doing nothing wrong or illegal.
The difference between them and me is that they have all the power and authority and I have none, and they are armed and I am not, and the judge will believe their story over mine unless I have overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The potential and tempation for abusing that authority cannot be overlooked. I don't want another busted tail light, or 'confiscated' case of beer from my own front porch, or 6 days in jail for something I didn't do (yes the charge was dropped when they found out they had the wrong guy, but I still had to waste those 6 days hanging out with child molesters and violent jerks and people who actually belonged in there). That's why I think "fething pigs", and just like to stay away from them as best as I can.
Guitardian wrote:Who are these 'gangs' we all fear in the first place?
Well right down the road there are 6 Apartment complexes, 2 of which are Government Housing facilities. Within these 6 complexes there are Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, and Nema (a local latino gang White and blue are their colors). Then we Have quite a few biker gangs in the area, Outlaws being one of the big ones. About a year ago I was delivering pizzas to these locations and on multiple times was threatened and followed to my car or the door of the delivery. The only reason I never got stabbed, shot or robbed was because I always kept a weapon on me. Note that I didn't say I always kept my gun on me. So yes, I consider having weapons for protection as necessary.
BTW, I've been lurking this thread since it started, doesn't change the fact that this is a random insertion into the thread.
However, is it because they are in a 'gang' that they are dangerous people and you feel carrying a weapon is advisable, or is it because they are dangerous people in the first place, affiliation as Cryp or Blood or GD or GypsyJoker or whatever tattoos they sport not being the operative issue?
I delivered pizza too for a while too and yes there were some 'projects' kind of places I had to go to (and never got a tip... you know you aren't getting a tip when someone orders beef and onion pizza to the projects) But I never went armed, always had 50-60 bucks on me, and never once had a problem (other than the lack of tip! "IF YOU CANT AFFORD TO TIP THE DELIVERY GUY PICK IT UP YOURSELF YOU CHEAPASS BASTARDS!" was my frequent rant after work) Nobody would assault me, because their address is right there on the pizza place's records. Often it would be paranoid people who obviously have something going on in their house because they only open their door a crack and you can smell the blunt smoke and there's clearly a party going on inside from the ruckus.
I don't care what they're doing there I'm just doing my job, which is bringing them a pizza and collecting their cash. Why would anybody mug a pizza boy from their own house, when the address and name are already listed when they called in the delivery?
That would just be stupid. I guess maybe the reason we feel the need to have a right to bear arms is because we are aware of the fact that there are lots of stupid people in the world and sometimes we may run across them.
However, is it because they are in a 'gang' that they are dangerous people and you feel carrying a weapon is advisable, or is it because they are dangerous people in the first place, affiliation as Cryp or Blood or GD or GypsyJoker or whatever tattoos they sport not being the operative issue?
I delivered pizza too for a while too and yes there were some 'projects' kind of places I had to go to (and never got a tip... you know you aren't getting a tip when someone orders beef and onion pizza to the projects) But I never went armed, always had 50-60 bucks on me, and never once had a problem (other than the lack of tip! "IF YOU CANT AFFORD TO TIP THE DELIVERY GUY PICK IT UP YOURSELF YOU CHEAPASS BASTARDS!" was my frequent rant after work) Nobody would assault me, because their address is right there on the pizza place's records. Often it would be paranoid people who obviously have something going on in their house because they only open their door a crack and you can smell the blunt smoke and there's clearly a party going on inside from the ruckus.
I don't care what they're doing there I'm just doing my job, which is bringing them a pizza and collecting their cash. Why would anybody mug a pizza boy from their own house, when the address and name are already listed when they called in the delivery?
That would just be stupid. I guess maybe the reason we feel the need to have a right to bear arms is because we are aware of the fact that there are lots of stupid people in the world and sometimes we may run across them.
Beware of dumb people.
There were many shootings and assaults in these, as you put it, 'projects'. I would frequently be delivering a pizza and see the cops throwing someone over the hood of a car or knocking on a door. It doesn't change the fact that the only reason I didn't get assaulted was because I am A) gigantic, B) armed, and C) my boss was in a completely separate gang out of Kissimee and it could cause trouble. Factor C didn't come into effect until my last 3 months on the job before the place closed down so it should barely be accounted for in my explanation.
I think there was a miscommunication: I didn't say the ones I was delivering to were the ones that gave me those looks. It was the others sitting on the hood of the cars or on the steps that would follow me, more than likely never having anything to do with those inside the residence.
I completely understand you now. There are some neighborhoods where shadey individuals live and lurk on street corners. I live near Detroit. What I was trying to say is that isn't due to gang affiliation, just shadey individuals. The El Rucans and Gangster disciples and so on are not responsible for gangs of kids running around stealing change from people's cars at night. Well, they're probably the parents of such kids but I don't think that is why we feel a need to be armed. You are gigantic, as you pointed out, I however am 5'8" and maybe 140 lbs so I don't take it for granted that my intimidating presence will deter anyone from accosting me. I did take a self defense and aikido classes when I was younger, but have never felt that I needed them, more just youthful curiosity. As was posted earlier, having a gun in a nightstand doesn't really increase your chances if someone is charging in in the middle of the night. My aikido classes won't save me from 5 thugs. Life isn't an action movie where you get to be Bruce Lee, yknow? I would prefer to avoid, explain, speak, make friends, etc than to arm myself. Again, maybe I'm just naive according to some of the posters here, but I have lived in some rough spots and never once felt it was necessary, or would help whatsoever, to have a weapon.
Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.
Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...
On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."
Sure, I never said anything about the morality of attacking someone who entered your home, or the desire to keep a gun for that purpose. My issue is with the assumed necessity to confront the person. Whether it's because you just seem to see as necessary, or because Frazzled has kids and dogs to protect, there's a decision you're making that I just don't see as necessary.
If the situation was moving to get the kids, and you came across the burglar, shoot the bugger for certain. But actually going to find him once the family is secure? You must love your XBox a lot more than I care for mine.
Alpharius wrote:Because her shotgun is... elsewhere at the moment?
Maybe that is one of the ten signs of a gun problem.
Do you think about firearms at inappropriate times?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:@ Sebster:
Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.
Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...
On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."
Sure, I never said anything about the morality of attacking someone who entered your home, or the desire to keep a gun for that purpose. My issue is with the assumed necessity to confront the person. Whether it's because you just seem to see as necessary, or because Frazzled has kids and dogs to protect, there's a decision you're making that I just don't see as necessary.
If the situation was moving to get the kids, and you came across the burglar, shoot the bugger for certain. But actually going to find him once the family is secure? You must love your XBox a lot more than I care for mine.
That is one of my issues, the necessity of confrontation if you can neutralize the situation by escaping and summoning the police. Again, I think where you live probably has a lot to do with that. If you're in a rural area it might be some time before you could expect help from law enforcement, and while I don't feel property in and of itself is a justification for killing someone, I think it probably justifies confronting the individual. That is a choice that depends on the situation and the person's judgment.
Also, I would imagine that someone entering your home by force comes with a profound sense of violation. I can't really say how I'd react in the situation because I've never been in it.
The website I was sent talks about Teddy Roosevelt as one of the great persons. Hey Teddy was a Republican President...
He was a political liberal who supported worker's rights and advocated the government interfering with companies. That's a pretty liberal view by that day's and today's standards.
Don't think that Republican means conservative or Democrat means liberal. Clinton, for example, was more conservative than Teddy.
I have nothing else to say here, as probably everybody here is more knowledgeable on the topic of guns than me and have personal experience on the matter.
Maybe we just love them because nasty sluts like to pose with them? And we are all secretly in love with skanks behind our wive's backs... because we're Americans! We get Maxim magazine! We get the swimsuit issue that for some reason has to do with football...
I doubt if any of those previously posted perv gun chick photos contained a woman who ACTUALLY liked shooting people. That's just wimpy almost-porn with a big gun as an excuse so all the gun toters can feel okay about their insecure need for a big gun. At least get some porn that isn't just suggested if you feel you need it. I have never seen a chick in a camoflage bikini hauling around a machinegun in real life, and that last one would knock herself over if she fired it. What I do see is angry paranoid males fantasizing that chicks like their big gun.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe we just love them because nasty sluts like to pose with them? And we are all secretly in love with skanks behind our wive's backs... because we're Americans! We get Maxim magazine! We get the swimsuit issue that for some reason has to do with football...
I doubt if any of those previously posted perv gun chick photos contained a woman who ACTUALLY liked shooting people. That's just wimpy almost-porn with a big gun as an excuse so all the gun toters can feel okay about their insecure need for a big gun. At least get some porn that isn't just suggested if you feel you need it. I have never seen a chick in a camoflage bikini hauling around a machinegun in real life, and that last one would knock herself over if she fired it. What I do see is angry paranoid males fantasizing that chicks like their big gun.
Guitardian wrote:Maybe we just love them because nasty sluts like to pose with them? And we are all secretly in love with skanks behind our wive's backs... because we're Americans! We get Maxim magazine! We get the swimsuit issue that for some reason has to do with football...
I doubt if any of those previously posted perv gun chick photos contained a woman who ACTUALLY liked shooting people. That's just wimpy almost-porn with a big gun as an excuse so all the gun toters can feel okay about their insecure need for a big gun. At least get some porn that isn't just suggested if you feel you need it. I have never seen a chick in a camoflage bikini hauling around a machinegun in real life, and that last one would knock herself over if she fired it. What I do see is angry paranoid males fantasizing that chicks like their big gun.
Maybe if they showed the pictures of the 'real' women who love guns, instead of the bikini-clad hotties who all show up so often at local gun ranges as we all know, (or at least assume if the cover of Guns and Ammo magazine is to be believed), we might not be so keen on them. I'm thinking Momma Fratelli from 'The Goonies' as a prime example. Let me try to think of another... oh yeah crazy astronaught chick on road trip wearing diaper tracking down her cheating lover's wife... and... um... hmm... Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers. That was what real women think about death and violence right there. (She was hot at least). I want a pic of an ogrish walmart-shopper crazy lady in short shorts going on a rampage blabbing out of her belly rolls under her camo bikini, while yelling at her 10 kids behind her, robbing the place. Then I'll believe it. If anyone can find that pic, please put it up, just to put things in perspective.
Guitardian wrote:Yeah I think so far Matty has the thread win.
Maybe if they showed the pictures of the 'real' women who love guns, instead of the bikini-clad hotties who all show up so often at local gun ranges as we all know, (or at least assume if the cover of Guns and Ammo magazine is to be believed), we might not be so keen on them. I'm thinking Momma Fratelli from 'The Goonies' as a prime example. Let me try to think of another... oh yeah crazy astronaught chick on road trip wearing diaper tracking down her cheating lover's wife... and... um... hmm... Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers. That was what real women think about death and violence right there. (She was hot at least). I want a pic of an ogrish walmart-shopper crazy lady in short shorts going on a rampage blabbing out of her belly rolls under her camo bikini, while yelling at her 10 kids behind her, robbing the place. Then I'll believe it. If anyone can find that pic, please put it up, just to put things in perspective.
We get it.... you DON'T LIKE hot girls with guns.
Does this better suit your personal tastes?
And for the rest of us...
To bad thats the new US compliant Chicago Typewriter.
I dunno if I can look at this thread any more... ugh... my GF will start thinking I'm into gay gun porn or something if she walked in on that hairy dude post as I scrolled on by trying to block it from my mind.
That is why gunmen target malls and schools. Gun free zones DON'T curb gun violence. It might not happen that day but if you piss someone off they'll just go home, get a gun and bring it to school the next day and even security can't stop them.
Had security been allowed guns at Columbine or VTech the shooters wouldn't have gotten off as many shots as they did. Hell, had other students who probably had guns at home or in their vehicle been allowed to have them in their locker or even on their person holstered, the shootings might have been less horrible.
That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
I don't know, the guy on the army base was brought down before he finished his shooting spree. This guy got to shoot until he ran out of steam and finished it himself. I'd rather the shooter not get to complete his rampage. Even though the army shooter wounded more people, we know his incident was not as bad as it could have been. He had more planned. The Cumberland shooter shot everyone he wanted to.
Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
The terrorist targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties.
Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.
Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.
And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.
Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.
Aye, and the only reason this is a story is because it is so rare.
I love guns, ive fired more than most, but honestly, this is a dead issue to me.
The only people that whinge about it are our gun toting cousins in the US, im pretty sure its a good thing that we have so few firearms, and i dont think anybody wants it to be any different. You can get firearms in the UK, they are just harder to get. Im happy with that.
Have you seen the general public!? 90% of them are idiots. America is the same, its got more idiots than sane people. And you think everyone getting tooled up is a good idea?
The whole worlds full of bad tempered fething idiots.
I like guns, id have a few if i lived in the USA, but primarily because lots of idiots have one, and ergo the cycle begins. They wind up everywhere.
Lots of guns being on the streets is a bad thing, and the redneck arguments like "but you guys cant rise up and overthrow your government!" (ive actually heard that one) or "if more people had guns then you could defend yourself better!" is a bad one. More guns equals more shootings. Its pretty black and white to me.
It isn't possible to be safe against the one in a million nutter, wherever you are.
In Japan, which has even stricter gun laws than the UK, a man killed seven and injured a bunch more by running a van into a pedestrian area then stabbing a bunch of people with a kitchen knife.
Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.
Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.
And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.
Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.
Aye, and the only reason this is a story is because it is so rare.
I love guns, ive fired more than most, but honestly, this is a dead issue to me.
The only people that whinge about it are our gun toting cousins in the US, im pretty sure its a good thing that we have so few firearms, and i dont think anybody wants it to be any different. You can get firearms in the UK, they are just harder to get. Im happy with that.
Have you seen the general public!? 90% of them are idiots. America is the same, its got more idiots than sane people. And you think everyone getting tooled up is a good idea?
The whole worlds full of bad tempered fething idiots.
I like guns, id have a few if i lived in the USA, but primarily because lots of idiots have one, and ergo the cycle begins. They wind up everywhere.
Lots of guns being on the streets is a bad thing, and the redneck arguments like "but you guys cant rise up and overthrow your government!" (ive actually heard that one) or "if more people had guns then you could defend yourself better!" is a bad one. More guns equals more shootings. Its pretty black and white to me.
But do you not think there should be some way for responsible individuals to enjoy our right to bear arms while weeding out potential problems? Can I not get a handgun if I am a responsible citizen? Also, it is probably just a fact that if you're going to enjoy the right to bear arms, there is going to be risk involved.
Also, please choose a different choice of words. I consider redneck offensive in the same manner as the n-word.
Guitardian wrote:
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.
I'm not justifying it, but you're probably being personally attacked because of your elitist tone and know-it-all, pedantic attitude.
Guitardian wrote:
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.
Yeah... And your brother being the stellar McDonalds holdover soldier that he is would also inform you that the Gate Guards are bound by general orders to guard everything withing the limits of their post and quit their post only when properly relieved. Which means that if a Shooting happened at say the PX, they will not abandon the main gate to go find out what is going on even if its only a few hundred meters down the road.
They would pick up the phone and report hearing gunshots coming from the PX to command, who in turn acts like a civilian dispatch and sends over other Mp's to investigate. Exactly like their civilian counterparts.
You then run into the same problem on post as you do outside it....
When seconds count and police are only minutes away.
So tell me... what exactly is a mock weapon? Last time I checked, we shot live rounds through real guns downrange. We even do live fire exercises with live ammo being shot at us. Hell, I know a guy that took a round in his 4th point of contact on a live fire range once.
And if you think military bases are secure... well guess what, they are FAR from it. Every road on/off post had a checkpoint on it, but most bases have MILES of unfenced and loosely patrolled boarders usually in dense woodland. If someone REALLY wanted in, they can get in.
Then again, what does the military know... everyone is just a bunch of rejects needing babysitting that could only get a job at McDonalds on the outside if they were lucky, right?
And if Military service men and women are generally held in higher regard and get better jobs on the civilian market then Joe Average... then where does that put you?
And I'm saying that I pay more for ONE bullet then I do a Gallon of gas. Unless I reloaded, my bullets would cost me more then two gallons actually for generic stuff... not the fancy match grade.
The only person here trying to talk off topic is yourself buy trying to flood it useless data and fake accounts. Even you admit that what you are posting is based not in fact and thus is nothing more then hot air. As already stated... Do a little more research before you comment and you will save yourself from having people like myself point out your many flaws.
Guitardian wrote:That happened here on an army base a few months ago. Ergo they don't make you safer, they just make others more dangerous. If all the guns on an army base can't keep professional soldiers safe from one man on a crazy shooting spree, I don't know if it is at possible to be safe anyways. At least with gun restrictions, the shooting sprees would probably be less frequent. Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Do you honestly think that every soldier on every post is walking around with a loaded M4 in full kit 24/7? Wait a min, why am I even asking this... apparently you do. In which case you are YET AGAIN wrong.
Please, do some research before you open your mouth and remove all doubt that you don't have a clue as to what you are saying.
And as already pointed out by Fraz, the Muslim gak head targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties with little to no threat to himself. True to the Typical Muslim cowardly form of fighting.
Guitardian wrote:Now if bullets cost more than gas people might think twice about shooting one off too.
Bullets already cost more then gas. Doesn't stop me and millions of other Americans from buying them.
Okay man, I acknowledge I don't know all the details. I have however done "research" as far as having my brother on a military base many times, and having the MPs at the gate make sure I have all my I.D. and so on before we go in. They were armed. Of course I do not assume that everyone in the army has a gun at all times, because I've been around on base enough to realize that it's just an apartment complex and a dormitory for kids who aren't in college and instead are doing their next best option (other than McDonalds...) Most of those kids on a base are young, and have never fired a weapon in anger, just a mock of one, in training, or at a target to earn their marksmanship badge. They are there to train, not to be shot at. What the scenario that unfolded tells me is that one random person with a death wish and access to arms can cause a lot of damage, even in the security of a military base. The columbine kids got away with going on and on because they attacked a school where nobody was armed. The attack on a base went as long as he could but more armament got in the way, and MPs responded. I give the MP more credit than a high school security guard for handling a crisis situation like this, but in either scenario, a lot of people died because someone went haywire with a gun. No guns means no problem. Yes gun means it could happen anywhere, even places which are supposedly defended, secure. You think you can buy a gallon of bullets more for the price of a gallon of gas? Yeah I'm sure they are more expensive, but you miss the point... how much gas gets used compared to how many bullets? I'd rather just buy food personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @jp400
If you want to make any more personal attacks instead of discussing the discussion you can feel free to PM me. Everyone else doesn't have to read you insulting me with silly oversimplifications. Insult me all you want just don't make it something everyone else has to read through. That's my last post on that matter (as I am taking my own advice here) and I will ignore any further personal insults from this point foreward unless in PM, in which case... game on.
Emphasis, mine.
Don't you mean no people no problem? Even If we get rid of guns people will still kill each other. They will just do it with knives or hammers or something else. Okay, well we get rid of those! Well now they are going to go find sticks and rocks, scratch them on a harder surface to form a point or find a big heavy one to hit someone with. Okay, well we get rid of those! Okay, so now they are just going to choke each other or keep kicking/punching until someone is dead. There is no way to prevent it. It is going to happen no matter what we do. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is just the tool. "Oh he shot his wife and the man she was cheating with. GUNS R THE BADZ!" No, He would of found a way to kill them anyways. The gun was just his tool. I'm not attacking you, this is just me trying to point out that your logic on the situation is flawed. One man with a gun can control 100 without one. If guns are illegal there will still be gun crime. You know why? Because the people that legally own guns aren't normally the ones that commit the crimes. It is the ones that obtain them illegally anyways. If we can't be armed then the guy that illegally attained the firearm is going to have even easier pickings.
Frazzled wrote:
The terrorist targetted a reception center specifically because no one there was armed and he could cause mass casualties.
Wrong. The shooting began at Hassan's workplace, and terminated outside a nearby theater. There is no evidence that his choice was made on the basis of likely weapon distribution.
The problem with giving a hot woman a gun is that nobody in their right minds will be paying attention to the gun.
Fateweaver wrote:That is why gunmen target malls and schools. Gun free zones DON'T curb gun violence. It might not happen that day but if you piss someone off they'll just go home, get a gun and bring it to school the next day and even security can't stop them.
Had security been allowed guns at Columbine or VTech the shooters wouldn't have gotten off as many shots as they did. Hell, had other students who probably had guns at home or in their vehicle been allowed to have them in their locker or even on their person holstered, the shootings might have been less horrible.
Letting security bring guns to a school seems fine (We actually have security here because Columbine was practically next door).
Letting students? You're asking for a lot of dead students. I've seen plenty of fights at our school, and we're not a particularly violent one. Letting students carry weapons in any way into schools is a bad idea because it will allow fights to escalate to fatal levels.
Won't comment on anything else, but there's a difference between letting a 30 year old man have a gun in a restaurant and letting a 16 year old hormone charged and potentially suicidal male take a gun into a school with plenty of other 16 year old boys who are likely to rile him up and could also be carrying guns.
IIRC, Japan has the highest incidence of knife crime in the industrialized world. Yet, owning guns is almost impossible there. Hmmm
Using Hassan is a good example of someone who wouldn't be suspected of something wrong. He was (still is) a Major and wouldn't cause an MP to ask questions about him having a firearm on him. He had an FN 5ive7even, which is not standard issue but legal to buy, it has a 21 round capacity and the bullets have better penetrative capability than the average pistol round. He knew exactly what he was doing, going to the Mental Health center, knowing no one is going to be armed. Hopefully this donkey-cave gets the firing squad.
Stormrider wrote: He knew exactly what he was doing, going to the Mental Health center, knowing no one is going to be armed.
He worked at the Soldier Readiness Center. Again, there is no evidence which indicates that the target could only have been chosen because there were unlikely to be firearms present. If that is assumed to be the case Hassan may as well have chosen any other facility on the base, or a civilian structure, as in both cases weapons are unlikely to be present.
Dogma... Come on. The fact that you have no idea about what you're talking about is glaringly obvious. If you had ever spent time on a military base you would know this. There's a few places where weapons aren't likely to be, and the hospital is one of them. Honestly, what are you basing your posts on?
Stormrider wrote: He knew exactly what he was doing, going to the Mental Health center, knowing no one is going to be armed.
He worked at the Soldier Readiness Center. Again, there is no evidence which indicates that the target could only have been chosen because there were unlikely to be firearms present. If that is assumed to be the case Hassan may as well have chosen any other facility on the base, or a civilian structure, as in both cases weapons are unlikely to be present.
The reason I point that out is that all of the major shootings happened where there are no other guns, other than the criminal's. They scout out a place to go shoot up and make sure that the area will more than likely be free of resistance.
Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine, The Utah Mall, The Pittsburgh Gym, Jonesboro, AR shooting. The Red Lake Minnesota Reservation shooting. The University of Texas @ Austin Shooting in 1966, the Texas Cafe in 1991 and now Cumbria all had one thing in common. No one else there was packing except the bad guys.
I am not saying that shootings wouldn't happen if more poeple could carry weapons into areas where they previously couldn't, these shootings might have never gotten as far as they did.
The idea that guns represent some kind of solution to mass killings is another very strange idea. It's great if a person nearby to a shooting can respond and bring down the shooter before he's finished his rampage, but there's no guarantee the respondent will win the shoot out, and even if he does then he'll be unlikely to bring down the shooter before he's shot some people.
A civilian nearby with a gun is, at best, a final desperate measure. What really matters is stopping mass killings in the first place. Yet we spend countless hours debating how important guns are in defending our rights, billions upon billions on guns and no small amount, but what is spent on mental health?
Grignard wrote:Yes, what exactly do you mean by the next best option ( other than McDonalds) remark??
Would you like to explain that, or do you want our interpretation?
No offense intended. A lot of the Army guys I met at Fort Lewis were in training for airborn or chemical cleanup, and one guy who was at the Navy base near Seattle was working as a tech on a nuclear sub. because they could not afford college, and didn't want to spend their lives as a McDonalds worker or (insert other random crap job here), and knew that the military would give them a means to a better future. That's all I meant by that, I'm sorry if it was understood the wrong way. These weren't dumb guys at all, just guys that had to do what they had to do to get ahead of being stuck at a minimum wage job.
Crummy thing is, the G.I. bill is erratic and my little brother consistently has problems with the timing of them getting around to paying the college while he did his duty on time, they kind of just get around to it on theirs.
Stormrider wrote:
The reason I point that out is that all of the major shootings happened where there are no other guns, other than the criminal's. They scout out a place to go shoot up and make sure that the area will more than likely be free of resistance.
Most places in the US are unlikely to be replete with firearms. You don't need to scout one out in order to be certain of that, and yet there aren't shootings in all places which don't make a habit of advertising weapons on a daily basis.
I don't think preparation is central to the psychology of most people who go on shooting sprees.
Stormrider wrote:
Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine, The Utah Mall, The Pittsburgh Gym, Jonesboro, AR shooting. The Red Lake Minnesota Reservation shooting. The University of Texas @ Austin Shooting in 1966, the Texas Cafe in 1991 and now Cumbria all had one thing in common. No one else there was packing except the bad guys.
Actually, the Whitman case is one which featured civilians using their own weapons to assist police.
sebster wrote:The idea that guns represent some kind of solution to mass killings is another very strange idea. It's great if a person nearby to a shooting can respond and bring down the shooter before he's finished his rampage, but there's no guarantee the respondent will win the shoot out, and even if he does then he'll be unlikely to bring down the shooter before he's shot some people.
A civilian nearby with a gun is, at best, a final desperate measure. What really matters is stopping mass killings in the first place. Yet we spend countless hours debating how important guns are in defending our rights, billions upon billions on guns and no small amount, but what is spent on mental health?
I plan on being a C&C soon, so the idea that I can at least deter and prevent crimes like aggravated assaults, robberies, rape and murder is a bit better than calling the police. Not that calling the police is the wrong thing to do, but when a madman is on the rampage or a robber is holding up a conveniece store and your insde or near them, it's you or him.
It's also highlty possible that you wont drop him before some people get shot, that's the nature of random killings like mass shooting sprees. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than said perp having free reign with everyone in the vicinity and killing them all with impunity.
The Mental health apsect is indeed a good point, unfortunately this country has decided "loony bins" are cruel, so they masses have some genuine undiagnosed nut cases amongst them. The Cho character who shot up VA Tech was ordered to get a mental evaluation by a judge for a prior incident, but it was not mandatory so he never went and he later legally bought a handgun. His background check never had his mental history on it since he never went and he killed 31 people. So you're saying one student in the room with a gun couldn't have shot back and possibly ended it relatively quickly?
Stormrider wrote:
The reason I point that out is that all of the major shootings happened where there are no other guns, other than the criminal's. They scout out a place to go shoot up and make sure that the area will more than likely be free of resistance.
Most places in the US are unlikely to be replete with firearms. You don't need to scout one out in order to be certain of that, and yet there aren't shootings in all places which don't make a habit of advertising weapons on a daily basis.
I don't think preparation is central to the psychology of most people who go on shooting sprees.
Stormrider wrote:
Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, Columbine, The Utah Mall, The Pittsburgh Gym, Jonesboro, AR shooting. The Red Lake Minnesota Reservation shooting. The University of Texas @ Austin Shooting in 1966, the Texas Cafe in 1991 and now Cumbria all had one thing in common. No one else there was packing except the bad guys.
Actually, the Whitman case is one which featured civilians using their own weapons to assist police.
You are right about the Whitman case, but that wasn't until he had offed lots of students. His vantage point really prevented an ideal sitation for people to fight back. This was also prior to alot of the gun control laws being enacted in 1968.
The word 'most' is an important one. Though I should specify and say that by 'preparation' I mean the sort of thing that leads one to select a location based on the likelihood that people in it will have firearms.
I think the mentality of a person who is going on a shooting spree is usually either religious zealot, desperate criminal, or angry high school kid. No matter how many guns are around they are going out in a blaze of glory, and it will cause casualties of innocents before someone pulls a gun and plugs them. Even one innocent person killed is too many. The difference between only being able to unload one clip versus many clips is possibly lowered by an armed public, but still doesn't change that first guy who got shot's fate. That guy who was just working at a cash register or walking his dog, and died thinking "I knew I shouldn't have left the house today... should have called in sick..." Guns make shooting sprees possible and do nothing to prevent them. Perhaps they minimize the damage, but they also make it possible in the first place.
Stormrider wrote:I plan on being a C&C soon, so the idea that I can at least deter and prevent crimes like aggravated assaults, robberies, rape and murder is a bit better than calling the police. Not that calling the police is the wrong thing to do, but when a madman is on the rampage or a robber is holding up a conveniece store and your insde or near them, it's you or him.
I didn’t suggest that people shouldn’t have guns, or that a gun can’t be effective in stopping a loon once he goes crazy. I think that focussing on guns, and using guns to stop loons is quite ineffective compared to developing improved health services.
It isn’t an either/or situation, it’s about where the debate focuses. Every time there’s a shooting you get the same people coming out and saying ‘if he couldn’t access guns he couldn’t have shot anyone’ or ‘if the surrounding people had guns they could have shot him before he’d injured many people’. Meanwhile there’s hardly any debate on decent mental health services, on identifying people at risk before they do something crazy.
It's also highlty possible that you wont drop him before some people get shot, that's the nature of random killings like mass shooting sprees. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than said perp having free reign with everyone in the vicinity and killing them all with impunity.
Sure. But even better is for a person with mental problems to be diagnosed and helped/removed from society before they start shooting people.
The Mental health apsect is indeed a good point, unfortunately this country has decided "loony bins" are cruel, so they masses have some genuine undiagnosed nut cases amongst them.
Well, not really. Picking people out as crazy and locking them away for ever as a basic course of action is pretty silly, and it’s good we’ve moved past that. Is that what you meant by “loony bins”? The problem comes from public awareness of mental health issues, and proper funding of mental health services.
So you're saying one student in the room with a gun couldn't have shot back and possibly ended it relatively quickly?
No, I’m saying if the debate had treated guns as a minor issue and instead focused on improving mental health services then a lot of the massacres would have been prevented.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:The word 'most' is an important one. Though I should specify and say that by 'preparation' I mean the sort of thing that leads one to select a location based on the likelihood that people in it will have firearms.
Thing is, people choose their locations carefully. But they choose these locations because of the part they play in their personal story of persecution – they pick their school or their workplace or whatever. They don’t pick them based on the likelihood of anyone there packing heat.
There aren't nearly as many mental health institutions in the US as there used to be. I agree that people should be treated for their mental issues, but usually said wackos only become an issue after they have snapped and gone on a rampage.
so anyways, I love guns because I was raised on them. My whole family shoots and we love getting the opportunity to go out and fire a couple of rounds or go hunting. It's a great deal of fun and is a bonding activity. Infact, my father and I only agree that guns are awesome and that long legs are hot. Politics? Nope. Taste in music? Not quite. Guns, long legs and women? HELL YEAH!
Mental Health services are far from efficient. They also make everyone insane my problem to pay for, just to feel safe from random gun looneys? If there weren't guns there would just be random looneys who won't necessarily feel the need to kill me over a bus seat or whatever because they wouldn't be given the power. I think the people who are violently insane should actually just be either locked in a box or just given a mercy killing (I prefer the latter). I have no care whatsoever what end comes to a violent person so long as it has no effect on me. Send them to Australia was the old solution. Nowadays we cannot be so primitive or culturally biased... so maybe... off to the moon?
Guns are power. They are an extension of will. Their very existance is an affront to free will. I know lots of dumb violent simple-minded oafs who love their guns, as neighbors or co-workers over the years. God forbid they should be armed, that means I have to be armed too! It is an unfair burden to put on your average person who has no interest in killing other people. I'm just pumping gas, oh... you have a gun, okay here's my $20 bucks. Congrats to you on being armed when I wasn't. No guns=no fear. No fear=no aggression.
Guitardian wrote:Mental Health services are far from efficient. They also make everyone insane my problem to pay for, just to feel safe from random gun looneys? If there weren't guns there would just be random looneys who won't necessarily feel the need to kill me over a bus seat or whatever because they wouldn't be given the power. I think the people who are violently insane should actually just be either locked in a box or just given a mercy killing (I prefer the latter). I have no care whatsoever what end comes to a violent person so long as it has no effect on me. Send them to Australia was the old solution. Nowadays we cannot be so primitive or culturally biased... so maybe... off to the moon?
Guns are power. They are an extension of will. Their very existance is an affront to free will. I know lots of dumb violent simple-minded oafs who love their guns, as neighbors or co-workers over the years. God forbid they should be armed, that means I have to be armed too! It is an unfair burden to put on your average person who has no interest in killing other people. I'm just pumping gas, oh... you have a gun, okay here's my $20 bucks. Congrats to you on being armed when I wasn't. No guns=no fear. No fear=no aggression.
The intent isn't for killing people, that is very short sighted, it's about defense. Good black belts in karate don't go around aggressively egging people on into fights, they only use force when there is no other option. It's the same with guns. Waving your legally owned pistol around like a dumbshit is incredibly stupid, which is excatly what C&C instructors tell you NOT to do. You don't broadcast you have the thing to avoid panic from the un-informed citizens.
The "remove all guns" idea has been tried, still doesn't work. Guns or any other killing tool will make it to a crime scene if the perp is willing to break the law, to break the law for something else. How are Class III weapons in the hands of Criminals? They broke the law. How are guns in the hands of felons at all (a federal offense)? They break the law. A piece of paper doesn't intimidate or stop a criminal.
Didn't alcohol become absolutley banned from 1918 to 1933? There was still scads of it everywhere.
Guitardian wrote:
Guns are power. They are an extension of will. Their very existance is an affront to free will. I know lots of dumb violent simple-minded oafs who love their guns, as neighbors or co-workers over the years. God forbid they should be armed, that means I have to be armed too! It is an unfair burden to put on your average person who has no interest in killing other people. I'm just pumping gas, oh... you have a gun, okay here's my $20 bucks. Congrats to you on being armed when I wasn't. No guns=no fear. No fear=no aggression.
Guns are power. They are an extension of will. They are not an affront to free will. You may think they are but they are not. The idiots are the ones who flaunt and advertise their firearms. Ignore them they are the same as religious zealots. They are the loud-mouthed idiots who get all the media. You don't hear about the quite Catholic who goes to Mass every Sunday and respects those around him. All you normally hear about is the "GOD HATES FAGS" and the "ALL MUSLIMS ARE THE ANTICHRIST!". Those guys are the idiots who make everyone else look bad.
If you want violence to stop existing you need to get rid of man and every creature that has the ability to commit a violent act with no provocation (as in, they aren't in need of sustenance, protecting territory, etc). I'll say it again: tools are not the problem. Humanity is the issue. I've been in hundreds of fights. Some with no provocation. I've also nearly killed someone with my hands. Guns had no effect on this and I own 12 without going back to North Carolina to get my other 3. Did I shoot him? No. Could I have killed him with my hands? Yes. Guns did not have any effect on the situation, adverse of not.
What you are asking for is impossible. you are asking for an annihilation of violence. It would be great if that were possible but lets be straight here, if there were no violence mankind wouldn't be where we are today. I'm 100% positive that America wouldn't exist, because they couldn't of revolted against The UK which wouldn't of existed because Rome would have never had a reason to explore into England, so on and so forth.
Peace is great but impossible and improbable. The fact that you insist that guns are the problem shows a distinct and intentional ignorance as I've pointed out multiple times that any tool can be used to kill someone. Most violent crimes in this country are committed with bare hands and some type of hand held weapon that is non projectile. Why not ban baseball bats, knives of all varieties and anything else that can be used to bludgeion, cut or stab someone.
I fully agree with you, and have suggested that banning guns would eventualy lead to banning chainsaws and bats and such about 15 pages back. However, non-violent actions, while utopian and far from grasp as a culture as a whole to just decide upon in one day, is obviously far fetched and unrealistic.
Every violent act is a decision. Guns just make it easier for a single mistake in judgement to become a tradgedy. I've been in some fights, had some guns pointed right in my face, and what I'm saying here, is that it never seemed like it would help at all in the moment, to own a gun. That is why I choose not to own a gun. I support the right to bear arms but I question the wisdom of even bothering.
This may result in a violent death, and I feel like quite a minority amongst the posters on this thread who imply that it is just naive, (and who seem mostly to be gun owners) but I truly believe that, while any tool can be used as a weapon, as you point out, guns are a tool intended to be used as a weapon and nothing else. I don't look at my hammer and think "that's meant to kill", I look at it and think carpentry. It is a problem with the human condition, not the legal issue of whether you would be allowed to have one (or 10, whatever) but why is it we feel we need them? Only because the next guy in line might have one.
Stormrider wrote:There aren't nearly as many mental health institutions in the US as there used to be.
They've never been efficient.
I agree that people should be treated for their mental issues, but usually said wackos only become an issue after they have snapped and gone on a rampage.
The point is in recognising problem cases before hand. Look into the events of each of these cases - there were always warning signs that were ignored. Often the signs weren't picked up by mental health professionals.
c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I've been in hundreds of fights. Some with no provocation. I've also nearly killed someone with my hands.
Hundreds... as in multiple sets of one hundred. Okay then.
Do you fight in a ring or something? Boxing? Wrestling? MMA? I am genuinely interested.
Also, how many concussions have you had? Maybe half a dozen? Don't take that the wrong way, I would just assume it to be the case, if what you say is true.
c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I've been in hundreds of fights. Some with no provocation. I've also nearly killed someone with my hands.
Hundreds... as in multiple sets of one hundred. Okay then.
Do you fight in a ring or something? Boxing? Wrestling? MMA? I am genuinely interested.
Also, how many concussions have you had? Maybe half a dozen? Don't take that the wrong way, I would just assume it to be the case, if what you say is true.
Greco-Roman wrestling and bare knuckle boxing. I use it to vent my frustration and anger. I have a couple of anger issues and wrestling helps me with it. The time I flipped out and nearly killed someone was when I found out my "friend" (was my best friend before this happened) had been sleeping with my fiancé at the time.
As far as concussions are concerned I'm currently at around 12 or so. Wrestling, bare knuckle boxing and American Football (played back in high school, middle school and grade school) will do it rather easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Guitardian: I think me and you are going to have to agree to disagree.
Stormrider wrote:IIRC, Japan has the highest incidence of knife crime in the industrialized world. Yet, owning guns is almost impossible there. Hmmm
That is not true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So this quickly went from a thread asking why americans love guns to whether or not gun ownership can stop crimes.
You know who didn't let their citizens have firearms? The Nazi's, that's who.
Lots of Germans in WW2 had all kinds of weapons ranging from rifles and machine-guns to tanks, heavy artillery. It was the government that made them carry them.
halonachos wrote:So this quickly went from a thread asking why americans love guns to whether or not gun ownership can stop crimes.
You know who didn't let their citizens have firearms? The Nazi's, that's who.
That's completely false. There was one Nazi gun control bill passed, in 1938. This policy removed any control from ownership or sale of long arms, only controlling side arms, expanded the number of people exempt from the ownership permit, and lowered the age of ownership from 20 to 18.
@c34r34 etc...
There is no disagreement to agree to disagree with here. You use your violent urges in ways that are constructive to you. boxing is far less deadly than gun rampages. I understand that fury feeling, we all do, we feel injustices and we have Y chromosomes. Boxing (usually) ends up with a dude knocked out, shooting ends up with dead people who did not deserve to be on the recieving end of your personal anger, which is thankfully taken out by boxing and wrestling in a somewhat controlled environment where you may well be smashing someone's face, but there's others around to make sure it doesn't go too far. "Fight Club" comes to mind, and "Snatch". In both (albeit fictional) movies the deaths are a result of guns, not punches.
I have never been in any kind of fight sport, just been in fights. Like, real fights, that I never wanted to be in but just happened cuz someone was being a dick. This is a very different scenario than purposefully joining a club where you can beat the snot out of someone in a controlled environment. The controlled environment shows restraint, as does target shooting at a pistol range. I bet street fights are a little more brutal and possibly deadly than that, and I don't like to think that the dude who I curb stomped back in the day has a little brother with his big brother's .45 coming after me. I would hate to get killed by a 9 yr old. THat would be an embarrassing thing to admit to saint peter.
The little middle school kids were the ones I was told to watch out for when I first went to Brooklyn. Seriously, little hoodrats will shoot you over five bucks just to look cool in front of their friends. Does any other grown man want to be in fear of a 9 year old, over whatever dumb crap is going on in the 9 year old's mind, or in his life? If he has a gun I suddenly have to be scared of his little hoodrat ass, where if he doesn't maybe he can learn something from talking to me about how he needs five bucks, and learn something about human kindness instead of human paranoid violence like he gets from his babysitter TV.
Monster Rain wrote:Dogma... Come on. The fact that you have no idea about what you're talking about is glaringly obvious. If you had ever spent time on a military base you would know this. There's a few places where weapons aren't likely to be, and the hospital is one of them. Honestly, what are you basing your posts on?
The internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:So this quickly went from a thread asking why americans love guns to whether or not gun ownership can stop crimes.
You know who didn't let their citizens have firearms? The Nazi's, that's who.
Communists don't permit firearms generally. It inhibits their mojo.
sebster wrote:The idea that guns represent some kind of solution to mass killings is another very strange idea. It's great if a person nearby to a shooting can respond and bring down the shooter before he's finished his rampage, but there's no guarantee the respondent will win the shoot out, and even if he does then he'll be unlikely to bring down the shooter before he's shot some people.
A civilian nearby with a gun is, at best, a final desperate measure. What really matters is stopping mass killings in the first place. Yet we spend countless hours debating how important guns are in defending our rights, billions upon billions on guns and no small amount, but what is spent on mental health?
Mental health services are the first to go when the budget gets tight here. I've never understood that.
However, I'll also say that the vast majority of the mentally ill are not violent. It is also worth noting that the language used on the forms you have to fill out when purchasing a firearm, at least in my state, concerning mental health are highly stigmatizing. I can't think of any other place where the term, "mental defective" is used. What exactly is a "mental defective" anyhow?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:Mental Health services are far from efficient. They also make everyone insane my problem to pay for, just to feel safe from random gun looneys? If there weren't guns there would just be random looneys who won't necessarily feel the need to kill me over a bus seat or whatever because they wouldn't be given the power. I think the people who are violently insane should actually just be either locked in a box or just given a mercy killing (I prefer the latter). I have no care whatsoever what end comes to a violent person so long as it has no effect on me. Send them to Australia was the old solution. Nowadays we cannot be so primitive or culturally biased... so maybe... off to the moon?
You have these ideals you've been talking about for the last 10 pages but you feel that the mentally ill are "not your problem"? And your solution is some sort of American T4 program? Are you serious or is this supposed to be taken satirically? If you're serious.....what the hell is wrong with you?
The mentally ill should not be my problem, but they are. This is because I choose to care about them because I want to. I have a schizophrenic friend who is smart, funny, and loving... just a little off his rocker. He is not violent though.
The violent people are the ones I choose not to care about. I don't care what happens to them so long as I don't have to deal with it. Violent people, whether mentally ill or not, are the ones that need to be shovelled out of the way, so the rest of us can go about our daily lives and not feel in fear. When it comes down to it you can excuse any murderer by saying it was a result of his background, or he was mentally ill, or he was pushed into it, or whatever else a good defense lawyer can make up. The point is, someone died and it wasn't the right person. Well this is getting into the realm of justification for the death penalty so I'll stop before it derails.
The mentally ill people are not a problem, just a burden. Ones with guns and an allegedly god-given urge or whatever reason to shoot innocent people are, and deserve to be put out of the way for everyone else's sake. Nuts or not.
Mental illness is a mystery. In a way everyone can use it as an excuse because we are all psychologically damaged in one way or another. Just because someone calls his inner thoughts by another name, like 'gods will' or 'hearing voices' doesn't make him any less responsible for his actions. If his actions do not hurt others, then let him babble and drool all he wants, and do our best to take care of him. The minute he crosses that line though...
Guitardian wrote:The mentally ill should not be my problem, but they are. This is because I choose to care about them because I want to. I have a schizophrenic friend who is smart, funny, and loving... just a little off his rocker. He is not violent though.
The violent people are the ones I choose not to care about. I don't care what happens to them so long as I don't have to deal with it. Violent people, whether mentally ill or not, are the ones that need to be shovelled out of the way, so the rest of us can go about our daily lives and not feel in fear. When it comes down to it you can excuse any murderer by saying it was a result of his background, or he was mentally ill, or he was pushed into it, or whatever else a good defense lawyer can make up. The point is, someone died and it wasn't the right person. Well this is getting into the realm of justification for the death penalty so I'll stop before it derails.
The mentally ill people are not a problem, just a burden. Ones with guns and an allegedly god-given urge or whatever reason to shoot innocent people are, and deserve to be put out of the way for everyone else's sake. Nuts or not.
Mental illness is a mystery. In a way everyone can use it as an excuse because we are all psychologically damaged in one way or another. Just because someone calls his inner thoughts by another name, like 'gods will' or 'hearing voices' doesn't make him any less responsible for his actions. If his actions do not hurt others, then let him babble and drool all he wants, and do our best to take care of him. The minute he crosses that line though...
Guitardian wrote: Ones with guns and an allegedly god-given urge or whatever reason to shoot innocent people are, and deserve to be put out of the way for everyone else's sake.
And so the wheel of argument returns to the keystone of this debate.
Is someone who has broken into your house innocent?
Ultimately, all of the arguments against using a gun for home defense come down to what the rights of the intruder are in this situation. With the exception of sebster's excellent point that the defender may lose the shoot-out.
After you answer this question, it becomes a question of degrees. What level of proof do you need that force is necessary?
How much force should a home owner be allowed to apply?
Most of these arguments were heard a few pages back.
I haven't seen anyone in this thread supporting a gun owner's right to shoot innocent people.
This mentally disabled tangent is quite off-putting. Folks suffering from legitimate, uncontrollable madness can't be held responsible for their actions. Our culture would extend every resource to aid them- and if they truly cannot help themselves, I think that's a noble sentiment. If they are violent then they need to be contained, studied and cured if possible. The more we know about the brain, the better for all of us.
Guitardian wrote:The mentally ill should not be my problem, but they are. This is because I choose to care about them because I want to. I have a schizophrenic friend who is smart, funny, and loving... just a little off his rocker. He is not violent though.
The violent people are the ones I choose not to care about. I don't care what happens to them so long as I don't have to deal with it. Violent people, whether mentally ill or not, are the ones that need to be shovelled out of the way, so the rest of us can go about our daily lives and not feel in fear. When it comes down to it you can excuse any murderer by saying it was a result of his background, or he was mentally ill, or he was pushed into it, or whatever else a good defense lawyer can make up. The point is, someone died and it wasn't the right person. Well this is getting into the realm of justification for the death penalty so I'll stop before it derails.
That is not correct, the legal definition of insanity does not necessarily correspond to the medical definition of mental illness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guitardian wrote:
Mental illness is a mystery. In a way everyone can use it as an excuse because we are all psychologically damaged in one way or another. Just because someone calls his inner thoughts by another name, like 'gods will' or 'hearing voices' doesn't make him any less responsible for his actions. If his actions do not hurt others, then let him babble and drool all he wants, and do our best to take care of him. The minute he crosses that line though...
No, we are not all psychologically damaged in one way or another, or at least not in a way that correlates to mental illness.
A defender CAN lose a shootout, sure but it's better to have at least tried than to lay their curled in a ball hoping an intruder doesn't shoot you or to try to run out the back door and get shot in the back, paralyzing you for life or killing you.
Most intruders might not know the layout of your house. You do. If you get a rude awakening at 2AM and have a gun nearby you automatically have the upper hand, even if an intruder is armed. Even in total darkness you know your way around your own house better than the BG (I'd hope anyway). Being familiar with the terrain is a huge advantage in any kind of engagement.
Not sure how true or untrue the idea of HS's and college kids having guns at their school escalating a fight is. I don't think allowing weapons automatically escalates fights to deadly levels. It COULD but it's debatabel. When I was in HS we were allowed to have knives in school, even the Bowie knives. I don't recall a single fight ever escalating into a knife fight (of course back in my day people didn't go home and get a gun and come back to school after being called a sissy or [see forum posting rules] or something trivial). Gun free zones don't deter gun crime like their intent should. All it does is make people in those areas more susceptible to gun violence. Will people still die if a gunmen walks into the Mall of America here in Mn and opens fire? Of course. Will he kill a lot less if people could shoot back or if security guards could shoot back? Most likely he would.
Fateweaver wrote:A defender CAN lose a shootout, sure but it's better to have at least tried than to lay their curled in a ball hoping an intruder doesn't shoot you or to try to run out the back door and get shot in the back, paralyzing you for life or killing you.
In either case you will have made an attempt to save your own life. Avoiding a confrontation altogether entails far less risk than deliberately seeking one out. Possessing a firearm enhances your ability to defend yourself if required, but it would still be a poor choice to confront an intruder unless forced by circumstance.
Fateweaver wrote:
Not sure how true or untrue the idea of HS's and college kids having guns at their school escalating a fight is. I don't think allowing weapons automatically escalates fights to deadly levels. It COULD but it's debatabel. When I was in HS we were allowed to have knives in school, even the Bowie knives. I don't recall a single fight ever escalating into a knife fight (of course back in my day people didn't go home and get a gun and come back to school after being called a sissy or [see forum posting rules] or something trivial). Gun free zones don't deter gun crime like their intent should. All it does is make people in those areas more susceptible to gun violence. Will people still die if a gunmen walks into the Mall of America here in Mn and opens fire? Of course. Will he kill a lot less if people could shoot back or if security guards could shoot back? Most likely he would.
I went to a very liberal, peace-loving school. I was one of 13 members of the college Republican party in a student body of about 1600. Not really a place where people were comfortable with weapons. Guns, and weapons in general, were not allowed on campus. I wasn't even allowed to keep my paintball gun in the dorm, not that it stopped me from doing so. In my four years at school I was threatened with a hatchet, a katana, 3 knives, and a mace (that was a bit odd). Had these situations escalated I could easily have seen them involving lethal force, even if there was no premeditated intent to kill. We have gun-free zones in order to prevent that sort of thing from happening; allowing security to focus on the people who do intend to cause harm by simply detaining (or calling on the police to detain) anyone who might be armed.
Honestly, I don't understand the logic behind the notion that the presence of guns prevents gun violence. Most places in the US do not feature armed civilians, and yet there is relatively little gun crime in the majority of the US. Conversely, there is a high level of civilian firearm possession in Somalia, and the level of gun crime is also very high. It does not seem as though firearms are effective deterrents in general, though it may stand to reason that they effectively deter crime in certain social situations.
to do with the issue of self defense. I could have a crow bar.
The common, everyday person IS the person that is the victem here on a daily basis.
.
