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.

Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

Guitardian I think that you are getting the concept of home invasion and self defence all wrong.

A home invader does not knock on the door, they kick it in. A maid coming for the day will use a key to enter the house, however most keys only fit the door to the correct house. I also highly doubt that you come at night and kick the door in when you let your neighbors dog out.

I have relationships with my neighbors as well, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to let them kick down the door to my house or just let them come in whenever they want, after all I may be in my underwear cleaning one of my guns. Two of my neighbors have emergency keys to my house and I have a copy of each of theirs.

We have had a lot of bad things going on lately in my neighborhood so we watch out for each other and we have a strong feeling that if our houses are broken into the people will most likely be armed.

In the past year: Burglary has gone up less than half a mile from my house, the neighbors across the street were busted for dealing drugs, a family friend's house was robbed and all of his guns were stolen, 2 carjackings, murder/suicide attempt in the house where the drug dealers were living, and awhile back we had a guy cut the head off of his kid in the house across the street. In the past two years the house two doors down from us was robbed twice. So, as I said before, my precaution is not without excuse.

Common sense says that if someone isn't expecting you at their house you don't just walk in uninvited. If you walk in uninvited in the middle of the night, well, you deserve a severe case of lead poisoning.

Uninvited is uninvited regardless of the time of day.

@Dogma. I also shouldn't HAVE to leave my house because someone decided to get stupid that night. If somebody gets a case of the stupid and breaks in a window or kicks in my front door his life is measured in minutes. I know all the ambush points in my house, I know if I'm alone I don't need to worry about innocents (a .45 won't penetrate enough to endanger anyone outside the home) and even if armed I feel confident I could win a gun fight.

Not everyone agrees with the castle law doctrines. I'm glad Mn has one in place and so long as it remains in place I'm going to exercise my right to take advantage of it if I have to.

dogma wrote: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.

It is a very strange fixation on guns as either the problem or the solution. The primary causes of the high rate of gun violence in Somalia is the lack of effective government.

Having more guns or having less guns really doesn't impact crime rates.

I think it may depend on the location as well as the status of banned weapons.

For example Chicago banned handguns and crime went up and when D.C repealed its handgun ban, crime went down. These are both very large cities though.

Even though I haven't found any articles saying so yet, I would believe that a handgun ban in a small town would have little effect or maybe even reduce the crime rate. Don't know and can't experiment so I just have to wait. Although I have heard stories about a town where they mandated all store owners to maintain and carry a firearm and according to them "crime didn't drop, it disappeared".



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also believe that the basic presence of the way guns work in deterring theft works as this.

A 42" tv is worth around 400-500 dollars. Now, if you throw in the chance that the people you are about to rob may have a firearm, you start to reconsider what you're willing to do to get 400-500 dollars.

It would be interesting to look at real crime stats from different countries with different gun ownership policies.

For example in the UK, about 1 in 31 households is legally armed, which you would think presents a significant danger to would-be burglars, yet there is a high rate of burglary.

I don't see any correlation between gun ownership and crime levels around the world.

Switzerland has high gun ownership and low crime levels. The USA has high gun ownership and significant (by European measures) crime levels. South Africa has high gun ownership and very high crime levels.

The relationship between a nation and its crime levels clearly isn't correlated with gun ownership. It's due to a variety of factors.

You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

halonachos wrote:
For example Chicago banned handguns and crime went up...

That's true, but the overall crime rate in Chicago has steadily decreased since shortly after the handgun ban was enacted in 1982, though that doesn't necessarily mean that the ban caused the drop. The ban itself was enacted due to significant increase in violent crime prior to 1982, which continued forward into the 90's.

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Guitardian wrote:Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

An again you ignore the ancillariy factors. WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN? WHAT ABOUT AGED PARENTS? WHAT ABOUT YOUR PETS?
Are you really going t play dangly dangly when they can hear all that and be on you instantly. I know. We have them in each bedroom in case of fire. The thought is sustainable

dogma wrote:

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.

I'm not sure comparing Somalia to the United states is worthwhile. The United States is a developed nation with stable government and reasonably effective law enforcement, while Somalia, in the past, has not been. During periods of unrest in Somalia it might be difficult to even define what is crime and what is armed conflict.

The theory an armed citizen can prevent violence by responding immediately to a situation in areas or times when police may not be immediately available. As is, while I completely support CC in general, I'm leery about extending that to places where alcohol is served or college campuses, for different reasons.

Like many things, there isn't a lot of moderation and people tend to go to far once they grab hold of the reins of government, which is what we're seeing in my state.

You also have to compare all stats. Total homicides not just homicides by firearm.

Then you get into the fun of how those statistics are quantified and the definitions used.

Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

Frazzled wrote:You also have to compare all stats. Total homicides not just homicides by firearm.

Then you get into the fun of how those statistics are quantified and the definitions used.

Then you have to add the number of crimes averted by demonstrating with a firearm (the FBI put that at 2.5MM in one year).

Its all a joyous statistical exercise.

I don't understand why its relevant anyhow. We're a nation whose citizens are guaranteed the right to bear arms. There may be a certain amount of risk in that, and more importantly, a great deal of responsibility. Many times with questions of individual rights it is a case of freedom being inversely proportional to security. If you want more freedom, you're going to have to give up a little security.

Guitardian wrote:Well I think a rope ladder or fire escape and a back window is a much better way of feeling safe from these supposed demonic intruders that bust into our houses all the time according to infomercials and gun magazines (the reading type, not the shooty type). Confronting whoever you hear enter your house with a gun is really just asking for an innocent death. Poor alice, the neighbor's maid who went through the wrong door on the other side of the duplex on her first day of work. If it's really about self defense if someone enters your home (how many people here has that actally happened to anyways? Random thug just breaks in? hmmm... none?) then poor Alice the maid is just a victim of gun violence too. So is next door neighbor lady who has been allowed in before to borrow some sugar, just dropping off some in return. I do actually have this relationship with my neighbor, and have previously gone over to let his dog out while he is gone for the day, because we trust each other. I wouldn't do that if I risked a shotgun blast for showing up at the wrong time. The reason we can have such a relationship is because we aren't all so pathetically scared of each other.

The simple expedient of locking your doors will prevent your neighbors, the homeless, and enterprising animals from wandering in off of the street.

I do quite agree that if you frequently wake up to strangers in your home, or find them when you get home then you probably should not exercise any sort of right to home defense. That would be like using self defense standards in a 4 person dorm room- there's always someone visiting, and you usually don't know (or remember) your roommates' guest.

Most people do not much care for dorm-style life, or keep an open door policy once they have items of value and have moved away from college. I suppose I must applaud the strength of your convictions if you are that convinced that people are good and want to leave your house open to them. You are a far more trusting man than I am.

Gitzbitah wrote:

The simple expedient of locking your doors will prevent your neighbors, the homeless, and enterprising animals from wandering in off of the street.

I do quite agree that if you frequently wake up to strangers in your home, or find them when you get home then you probably should not exercise any sort of right to home defense. That would be like using self defense standards in a 4 person dorm room- there's always someone visiting, and you usually don't know (or remember) your roommates' guest.

Most people do not much care for dorm-style life, or keep an open door policy once they have items of value and have moved away from college. I suppose I must applaud the strength of your convictions if you are that convinced that people are good and want to leave your house open to them. You are a far more trusting man than I am.

We're sort of going in circles on whether or not its worthwhile to keep a loaded weapon in your home or what the effect of firearms politics is on crime. One thing I'm noticing, not in all cases, but it some of the people on both sides of this argument is a lot of fear. Ironically, I think the people who feel strongest about being armed and those who feel that weapons are inherently dangerous and should be banned except for hunting purposes are arguing from the very same premise, which I'm not sure is correct.

On one hand, you have the mode of thought that spree killings and gun crimes are just waiting to occur in large numbers as soon as people get their hands on weapons. On the other, you have the school of thought that you need to be armed everywhere at all times because of dangerous criminals that are lurking about in large numbers.

Is it really this bad? I know I haven't had any crime issues other than petty theft and vandalism in my neighborhood, and I certainly don't live in a high income area. There was a shooting in the mall where my FLGS is, but it was a targeted thing. I'm not afraid to go to the mall because someone got shot there. While I live in a medium size city, I've walked around in large cities without undue fear, though I certainly tried to stay aware of my surroundings, which is just a smart thing to do anyhow. There has always been violence of course, but I think the vast majority of people who own firearms are more or less responsible people. I don't think there are nearly as many violent criminals lurking around as people imagine, and your odds of being caught up in a spree shooting is vanishingly small.

Frankly I think everything was fine before we started tinkering with the law. That goes for things like the Brady bill and the so called assault weapons ban, and it also goes for the idea that we suddenly need to carry firearms where they've been traditionally restricted, like college campuses and bars.

Here's one to try to break this circular topic a bit. I'm not saying I agree or disagree at this point, but I'm throwing it out there. Lately civil libertarians have asserted that shopping malls, in spite of being private property, cannot restrict speech or art that the patrons or the mall find offensive ( outside of things that are already restricted in public places) because malls have become de facto public spaces and effectively not private property. Yet these same people have been strangely quiet when malls restrict C&C permit holders from carrying their weapon in the mall. Is this not hypocritical?

What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

I quite agree, this was becoming circular. My intention was to question guitardian's scenario of folks wandering into your house.

I don't think crime is by any means that bad. I've never been robbed or had my home broken into. My stance on the issue is entirely theoretical, and has only slightly more grounding in reality than my fear of the zombie apocalypse. I believe in having thought through jus about every scenario possible, and having some sort of plan. That makes you much less prone to panic when that one in a million chance strikes.

I am all for the right to bear arms, but I am against mixing alcohol and weapons. People make stupid decisions when they drink too much. The less permanent the consequences of those stupid decisions the better for everyone.

I think the mall issue is a freedom of speech problem, rather than a weapons issue. Private property shouldn't be forced to allow things that the owners and their patrons find offensive. Private property definitely should have the right to refuse weapons on their premises.

Grignard wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if there are people who approve of free speech and disapprove of carrying of guns.

The fact that they are both allowed or guaranteed under the constitution does not compel one's personal convictions.

I understand that. But the argument that has been used works on the idea that shopping malls are effectively public places and can't use private property rights as an excuse to trump individual rights because they are public. Shouldn't that work the same for rights guaranteed under another amendment?

I'm not necessarily saying how I feel, or that someone can't feel that way, but it seems like you'd have to make both arguments to make one.

Once you get into the nitty gritty detail it becomes more difficult.

For example, I would use the argument that if a shopping mall is allowed to ban free speech inside, it prevents consumers from making a legitimate protest outside a shop. It would be meaningless for this protest to be made at home -- the point of the protest is that it must be done in front of the company it concerns.

OTOH I would argue there is no reason for the general public to carry weapons in the mall since it already has security. The carrying of weapons in such circumstances is not for a practical purpose and only serves to validate a specific opinion about the right to bear arms. Against that, the more weapons in a place the more chance there is of an accident. Please note I am making this argument as a demonstration of the kind of argument I think could be made, which would be legitimate and sensible if I were a US civil libertarian.

Also note that the right of free speech is limited by things such as slander and calling out fire in a crowded theatre, so there are precedents for limitations of amendment rights.

I don't think shopping mall security guards would be much help when the shooting starts they would be panicked like anyone else. I sure wouldn't enter a gunfight for 6 bucks an hour. I personally don't like to go to malls in the first place because the place is crawling with hoomaans and I have no need for Hot Topic in my life, but on the occasions that I do, if a shooting spree erupted I would just be glad that I'm a little target and I can sprint when necessary and smart enough to get to cover the moment I hear the gunshots start. I do go to malls from time to time to buy christmas shopping and, while generally disgusted by them, don't feel a need for 'protection' while there, just a veil of tolerance for the annoying people everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if that is what causes random shooting guy to pick his target spot. The mall is full of everything he hates about life, complete with neon signs to remind him of things that don't matter. Also chock full of chunky, big, slow moving targets who represent society to him.

If everyone is panicking the more guns around the better, eh.

I reckon the random shooter picks at random, or perhaps just decides he doesn't like your face, or something.

There were some people Michael Ryan could have shot easily, but he let them off.

Thomas Hamilton was worse in the sense that he deliberately picked on young children who would have no way of imagining what was happening and defending themselves.

Kilkrazy wrote:If everyone is panicking the more guns around the better, eh.

I reckon the random shooter picks at random, or perhaps just decides he doesn't like your face, or something.

There were some people Michael Ryan could have shot easily, but he let them off.

Thomas Hamilton was worse in the sense that he deliberately picked on young children who would have no way of imagining what was happening and defending themselves.

Sorry I am not referencing who these people are, and am probably ignorant in my bliss.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Details would be incredibly difficult to obtain.
First you would need to detail the exact governmental structure of each country. Then you would have to detail the number of states/provinces states that ban weapons and what type of weapons. You would also have to detail which cities in each country also ban weapons and what kind of weapons. Then you would have to detail which places inside each city ban firearms. For example colleges, some allow carry some don't.

Besides that you have to look at what kind of ban each place has. Some allow concealed weapons licenses and others don't. Then you have to look at all of the abstract laws in place when it comes to certain firearms. Some automatic weapons can be owned without a license if they were manufactured and owned before a certain point in time while the majority of them require a class 3 license or something like that. Then you have to look at the number of households that do have firearms and how many they have and what type they are compared to the number of households that do not have any firearms. Look at Frazzled, I think he alone owns at least 50% of the nation's weapons.

There are also other weapons that could be classified as a firearm in some abstract way, such as airsoft guns or even potato guns. Then there's ballistic knives that could somehow manage to climb into bed with the firearm catagory.

Then not only that you would have to see what classifies as a certain type of firearm compared between each state/country/province, etc.

After that's all said and done you haven't even started getting the details on crime statistics and certain types of gun related deaths have occured.

Once you're done with all of this and make a nice graph, you're just going to get it attacked by some NRA activist or right wing politician who's going to demand more specifics so it's just a huge hassle and nobody can be paid enough to do that in my opinion.

Michael Ryan did the Hungerford Massacre.

Hamilton did the Dunblane Primary School massacre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:You can't really compare gun ownership in the U.S as a country to other countries around the world. Gun ownership in the US varies in different states and in different cities. You also have to look at the kind of weapons being banned.

Of course you can. It just requires going into more detail.

Details would be incredibly difficult to obtain.
First you would need to detail the exact governmental structure of each country. Then you would have to detail the number of states/provinces states that ban weapons and what type of weapons. You would also have to detail which cities in each country also ban weapons and what kind of weapons. Then you would have to detail which places inside each city ban firearms. For example colleges, some allow carry some don't.

Besides that you have to look at what kind of ban each place has. Some allow concealed weapons licenses and others don't. Then you have to look at all of the abstract laws in place when it comes to certain firearms. Some automatic weapons can be owned without a license if they were manufactured and owned before a certain point in time while the majority of them require a class 3 license or something like that. Then you have to look at the number of households that do have firearms and how many they have and what type they are compared to the number of households that do not have any firearms. Look at Frazzled, I think he alone owns at least 50% of the nation's weapons.

There are also other weapons that could be classified as a firearm in some abstract way, such as airsoft guns or even potato guns. Then there's ballistic knives that could somehow manage to climb into bed with the firearm catagory.

Then not only that you would have to see what classifies as a certain type of firearm compared between each state/country/province, etc.

After that's all said and done you haven't even started getting the details on crime statistics and certain types of gun related deaths have occured.

Once you're done with all of this and make a nice graph, you're just going to get it attacked by some NRA activist or right wing politician who's going to demand more specifics so it's just a huge hassle and nobody can be paid enough to do that in my opinion.

So in your view all law enforcement is completely random?

If a mall security guard panics when shooting starts he was a piss poor choice for security guard. As well security guards (at least where I live) start off around $14/hour; cops around $16/hour. So security guard, while not as glamorous as a cop, pays nearly as well (though most are part time so annual pay will be much less).

Our (my cities) mall is tiny so it's security guard has an easy job and is only armed with pepper spray and a baton. Our high school has 2 actual policeman that patrol it daily. Kind of worrying when the HS has tighter security than the mall. Of course that also attributes to lots of paranoia as well.

I would like to think that security guards are selected and trained to have the ability to provide security.

Assuming it is true, doesn't it support my point about why free speech should be allowed in a shopping mall but not guns?

No doubt the laws on this vary from state to state.

I think they are meant to make people scared to shoplift. Their presence makes people less willing to take the risk of being caught.

Guitardian wrote:I do go to malls from time to time to buy christmas shopping and, while generally disgusted by them, don't feel a need for 'protection' while there, just a veil of tolerance for the annoying people everywhere.

I bet you strangle puppies too, huh?

sA

Yeah actually I like beating up gay people in malls. And puppies. Where the feth did that come from?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
noticed you edited out the irrelevant homophobia reference (edited 1 time)?

It just seemed a very boorish and anti-social statement to make. It's called 'society'.

Homo. Google it yourself. I did include "(...think about it...)" but clearly you didn't have the faculty.

sA