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.

dogma wrote:

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.

dogma wrote:I don't think preparation is central to the psychology of most people who go on shooting sprees.

Columbine? They had bombs set up.

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?


Here' a great vid for everyone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

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.

Necroman wrote:
Columbine? They had bombs set up.

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!

Don't hear the good side of guns on the TV huh?

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.

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.

Wrexasaur wrote:

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.

Retract the comment.

@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...

Oh my, I'm in agreement here.

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.