Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Seaward wrote:Saw this in one of the handgun advice threads:
Joey wrote:
thenoobbomb wrote:Are we busy talking about buying murdering weapons? Oh my, were are we going, world...
Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to buy something to help me take away another man's life, any advice?".
Very strange.
Discuss.
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
I'm 6 foot 1.
If I want to "feel like a man" i'll wear a t-shirt or roll my sleeves up so everyone around me knows they're weaker than me.
If you need a gun to do that you're a pussy.
I don't. I'm the quiet guy you don't feth with, cause if you do my wife will shoot you in the face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
A Kentucky Rifle makes every man 6 feet tall.
What if they also happen to be a midget?
Then they will need a friend to help load it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 02:57:22
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Howard A Treesong wrote:It doesn't, because people are more frequently injured in accidents with guns that though malicious actions. There's those damn statistics again instead of coming up with singular examples of high profile cases.
'Injuries' covers more than fatalities and you want to look at the risks and benefits of owning a gun in the home. Unless you take the gun out with you, it's useless against crime committed anywhere outside the home. At home a gun injury is far more likely to be accidental than malicious, and where deliberate it's a friend/relative and not a stranger.
The article I had read before is now behind a paywall, but from what I quoted before
However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger
A study of all gunshot injuries in Galveston, Texas, over a 3-year period found only 2 that were related to residential burglary or robbery. In one, the homeowner was shot and killed by a burglar; in the other, the homeowner shot the burglar. During the same interval, guns in the home were involved in the death and injury of more than 100 residents, family members, friends, or acquaintances
Accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 in the USA have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun than children in other developed countries. Residents from the 15 US states with highest gun ownership were 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than those from the 6 states with the lowest gun ownership. For every fatal gun accident, more than 10 people are injured seriously enough in gun accidents to require hospital ER treatment.
Suicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns every day. Guns are clearly the leading instrument in successful suicide attempts. Numerous studies have shown that guns in the home are associated with significantly higher rates of suicide, especially for adolescents and young adults.
Homicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 33 Americans were murdered with guns every day. Over 2/3 of all homicides were done with firearms. Of 400 homicide victims from 3 US metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes, over half died from gunshot wounds; in 95% of cases, the perpetrator was not a stranger – in only 14% of cases, was there evidence of forced entry. The presence of a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Intimidation. Studies of battered women reveal that guns are used to intimidate and coerce; one analysis of Californian shelter data shows this to be a factor in 2/3 of cases.
-----------
The benefits of having a gun at home are usually grouped under the heading ‘protection’, plus, of course, ‘fun’. There are fewer stats and references to these topics in the review.
Deterrence. Lower crime rates have been reported in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. The reverse is also reported in other studies.
Thwarting Crimes. In fact, actual use of a gun is extremely rare – in about 1% of home invasions and 0.1% in sexual assaults, according to police reports; and the reports indicate that a lot of these are inappropriate use of the gun. And a poorly-trained gun owner is even more unlikely to use the weapon effectively, even when self-defense is involved.
It sounds like most people killed by gun crime die somewhere other than home when they don't have their gun, making ownership a moot point. And of the few that do occur in the home, people are unable to defend themselves effectively even when they have a gun in the house. Furthermore, people owning guns find that there's a much greater risk through accidents than there ever is through someone breaking in which is rather what I've been saying throughout.
As often with crime, you are far more likely to be murdered by a relative. Broadly, the risk is not from someone breaking in and shooting you, it's from you either shooting yourself or the mother in law.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 03:01:37
ChocolateGork wrote:Im pretty sure that a million armed jews would have been quite a problem
Yea but, as Dogma noted, what if they were a million midgets with Kentucky Rifles?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
Nu uh! My wife has years of pent up rage! She's scrappy!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Then they will need a friend to help load it.
Dogma has the way of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 03:03:28
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
AFAIK that's pretty much what the confederacy was. You'd think they'd have learned by now.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
AustonT wrote:
There are plenty of examples of privately owned warships while the founders lived, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility. Mostly the spiraling cost and sophistication of arms makes it more impractical than it is illegal.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
That's an interesting question actually. I know the size of weapon you can have is prohibited by some(all?) states, like most people can't buy a surface to air missile launcher, but is there a limit on how many actual weapons you can have?
Could you stockpile millions of weapons, say?
I was thinkng to myself that for all the US goes on about Terrorists would it be possible to raise an army there legally and launch an insurgency? It would be ironic if nothing else.
it has happened on more than one occasion, and depending on you person views you can view a lot of private security companies as armies in all but name.
In reality equipping a modern army without governmental consent would be impossible. By the letter of the Constitution it should be legal.
A good example of an army raised and funded by one man would be Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders. Since the collapse of the true militia system such organizations have disappeared. Militarily a sound decision but unquestionably a betrayal of the constitutional intent of the second amendment that if needs be the people could overthrow an injust government. Any and all attempts to do so are rightly called rebellions, until one actually wins.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
d-usa wrote:Well, if you get a cc license, then you can take your gun with you.
Or depending on the state, you can open carry, and take your fire arm with you without a CCW. I know Michigan is an open carry.....er well, last time I thought about it ti was
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as size/number of firearms Americans can own, I personally havnt heard of any set limit. I personally know a few people that have several saves full of weapons. So rough guess, 40+?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 03:31:38
Accidents. Children aged 5 to 14 in the USA have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun than children in other developed countries. Residents from the 15 US states with highest gun ownership were 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than those from the 6 states with the lowest gun ownership. For every fatal gun accident, more than 10 people are injured seriously enough in gun accidents to require hospital ER treatment.
Don't you think it's surprising that kids in the US are only 11 times more likely to be killed accidentally with a gun than in places where guns are all but illegal to own? But this doesn't really give an idea of the actual risk.
Are people with guns more or less likely to have kids die from accidents in the home?
Suicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 46 Americans committed suicide with guns every day. Guns are clearly the leading instrument in successful suicide attempts. Numerous studies have shown that guns in the home are associated with significantly higher rates of suicide, especially for adolescents and young adults.
And this isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of committing suicide. Are gun owners more or less likely to have suicide?
Homicides. Between 2003 and 2007, an average of 33 Americans were murdered with guns every day. Over 2/3 of all homicides were done with firearms. Of 400 homicide victims from 3 US metropolitan areas who were killed in their homes, over half died from gunshot wounds; in 95% of cases, the perpetrator was not a stranger – in only 14% of cases, was there evidence of forced entry. The presence of a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk for homicide in the home.
Quoting homicide statistics doesn't mean there's a risk of owning a gun, it means there's a risk of homicide.
Intimidation. Studies of battered women reveal that guns are used to intimidate and coerce; one analysis of Californian shelter data shows this to be a factor in 2/3 of cases.
This isn't a risk of owning a gun, it's a risk of battered women. Are women in a gun-owning home more or less likely to be intimidated, controlling for other variables?
And none of these actually support your point, because they're not actually relevant to the 'safety' of owning a gun.
d-usa wrote:Well, if you get a cc license, then you can take your gun with you.
Or depending on the state, you can open carry, and take your fire arm with you without a CCW. I know Michigan is an open carry.....er well, last time I thought about it ti was
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as size/number of firearms Americans can own, I personally havnt heard of any set limit. I personally know a few people that have several saves full of weapons. So rough guess, 40+?
Well, I picked cc because it is fairly consistent. Open carry has a lot more variation between states.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another downside of using knives for home defense is that you are going to be in trouble when zombies attack.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to rely on a knife when defending my home from the living dead. If I am close enough to stab, then they are close enough to bite.
When faced with zombies you want guns, and some of these:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 04:25:45
Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?
Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.
... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 06:03:01
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Wyrmalla wrote:....Why do you need to kill the person that's attacking you in the first place?
Because if they're dead they can't sue me for harming them.
... what? I'm not kidding. Criminals have successfully sued because they broke in to someone's home and then injured themselves in the house. If I zap someone with a tazer they can sue me afterwards. If I cut them with a knife they can sue me afterwards (if they're alive). If I break their leg with martial arts they can sue me afterwards. If I shoot the criminal and they don't die, they can sue me afterwards. If I put three rounds in their chest and they die, they can't sue me for injuring them in self defense.
You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them?
Emigrate.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
Joey wrote:You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them? Emigrate.
No, the criminals can sue because the home-owners injured them, not because they injured the home-owners.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 06:16:55
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I tell everyone who will listen, if you have to pull your gun from concealed carry you have to shoot, if you have to shoot there can only be one story yours; about how this corpse ended up here.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Depends, if you shoot the bad guy in the back because he started rubbing as soon as he figured out what was happening, and you might be talking to the DA.
Best answer regarding any situation where you drew your gun and/or shot is to call your attorney as soon as you are done calling 911.
But the "what to do after you defended yourself" discussion is also worth a thread of its own and depends very heavily on the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The deciding factor in many jurisdictions is often the indent.
If you draw your gun simply to scare somebody, you can be charged with branding or pointing which are both felonies in Oklahoma.
If you draw your gun with the intent to defend yourself, but the threat is neutralized before you shoot (ie: guy runs away) then shooting him may no longer be considered self defense and you may be justified in not shooting.
Just lots of variables that are not really served by a blanked statement like "if you pull you must shoot" IMO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 06:23:40
Joey wrote:You have a legal system that allows criminals to sue home-owners for being injured in self-defence, but get away scott free for killing them? Emigrate.
No, the criminals can sue because the home-owners injured them, not because they injured the home-owners.
What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
I may be completely wrong though, it is 6:20am.
Everyone in the UK already knows how crap the laws surrounding intruders are, you almost have to ask them if they want a cup of tea whilst they're ransacking your home.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 06:25:33
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
Avatar 720 wrote:What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
In that case, it's more the simple fact that a dead person cannot sue, only a living person can.
The "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas usually prevent someone from being criminally liable if they shoot someone defending their home so the concern of avoiding being sued in this case is a civil matter rather than a criminal one. Civil laws are FUBAR in this regard, though not as much as they are in the UK thankfully.
Amusingly enough, "Castle Doctrine" laws historically originated in the UK.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/01/16 06:31:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Avatar 720 wrote:What I think he meant is that it's possible for you to get done for injuring an intruder, but if you kill said intruder then you don't go down for it.
In that case, it's more the simple fact that a dead person cannot sue, only a living person can.
The "Castle Doctrine" laws in Texas usually prevent someone from being criminally liable if they shoot someone defending their home so the concern of avoiding being sued in this case is a civil matter rather than a criminal one. Civil laws are FUBAR in this regard, though not as much as they are in the UK thankfully.
Amusingly enough, "Castle Doctrine" laws historically originated in the UK.
Yeah, it is not a criminal charge but a civil one. And then it is pretty much a case of anybody being able to sue anybody for anything. Even if you kill the intruder, his family could still sue you. Heck there is a case where a woman is suing the family of a guy who was killed by running in front of a train. A piece of his body that flew of hit her and injured her and "he should have anticipated that"...
D-USA.
If you draw your gun for any purpose buts it's use( and sometimes it's use) you can be charged with brandishing and criminal endangerment immediately. Which means if you have to draw the decision should already be made in you mind that your life or someone elses is in danger and you can articulate that to the DA. afterwards call 911 then refuse to answer questions until you have an attorney. Most cops don't put on any pressure at that point because that's wha they do too.
Of course your right after an incident does bear a while conversation that's just where I was coming from.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
But if you shoot a bad guy in the back, you will have a lot of questions to answer and "I already had my gun drawn so I shot him even though he was no a threat anymore" may not be a good answer. But even in cc states vary and that's where the "always lawyer up" is truly the best advise.
Even if you don't shoot because the bad guy ran away and then call 911 to report the crime (which would be my position) you still want to lawyer up in case you get charged with brandishing.
I guess the moral between is two would be "while your interpretation of what the law allows or requires you to do, always get a lawyer". It's good to agree on something.
thenoobbomb wrote:There is no point in having guns in your house.
Why would you want to have one? For safety? Then you did something very wrong to be so afraid that you want a gun - dont tell me what!
Good question. Here's my answer:
Mannahnin wrote:A lot of folks online (and in emails in other parts of life) use pretty mangled English. The idea is that it takes extra effort and time to write properly, and they’d rather save the time. If you can still be understood, what’s the harm? While most of the time a sloppy post CAN be understood, the use of proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling is generally seen as respectable and desirable on most forums. It demonstrates an effort made to be understood, and to make your post an easy and pleasant read. By making this effort, you can often elicit more positive responses from the community, and instantly mark yourself as someone worth talking to.
insaniak wrote: Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.
(and how could a person with a gunshot to each of their extremities still threaten you, being an exteme example) ?
Drug use, adrenaline, fanaticism, insufficient injury to extremity to render it useless, resulting in continued combat. Any number of reasons why. It's also a very poor idea to shoot for extremities. Not only is it not as likely to actually STOP the assault, but if you launch projectiles, and you miss, you are responsible for anything or anyone that bullet hurts that DIDN'T deserve shooting. Don't miss. Aiming for limbs is a greater chance you will miss.
I find it a bit wierd that those who are advocating firearms are so willing to take a life to defend themselves. How difficult is it to disarm your assailent? Easier than just shooting them in the head right?
Very, and No. It's difficult to hit a mobile head sized target under most conditions, and that is an order of magnitude easier than trying to disarm someone equipped with multiple braincells (Disregarding absolute, total surprise and a staggering difference in reflex times.) The lethal weapon 4 trick of pulling a slide off someones gun, or yanking a pistol from an attacker is something that should be left to the movies or as an absolute last measure.
....Isn't there a mandatory class in how to effectively use a gun in place throughout the states anyhow? Youknow, a car being a deadly weapon too if you don't know how to use it properly, thus safety being part of the driving tests.
Yes and no. For raw ownership, generally no. For hunting or carrying a pistol concealed in public, yes. There are safety classes for both hunters, and for concealed carry applicants, and the US has a wide assortment of private shooting schools and instructors running classes across the country for any sort of shooting you can think of.
Um... So is there a limit as to how large a US citizen's arsenal can get before the government comes in? I mean would it be technically possible for one man to amass an army under the laws of the constitution?
Nope. Though if you start shaking the boat, the US tends to find some legal I not dotted or T not crossed to haul you in on. And then they run your house over with a tank. But yes, it's theoretically possible (assuming I had the financial power) to amass armored vehicles, artillery, small arms (Except machine guns. I am speaking strictly as a private citizen, not as someone starting a "security company" or similar), aircraft, explosives and support equipment quite legally.
......However just imagining the mass of regulations is causing me a mild panic attack. And also 12 aneurysms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/16 08:48:38
