Just had a conversation with a friend about home invasion, I can't remember how the discussion started, but it lead to me looking up laws about the subject. I live in Calgary and in the last few years there have been quite a few home invasions so I started thinking to myself what I would do in the situation.
Quoted from an RCMP officer: "The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property," she said. "However, that force must be the minimum amount necessary." Cpl. Patty Neely of the Strathmore RCMP.
Do you agree with this? If someone comes into your home with the intent to threaten your life and steal your shit do you really think you should be limited in your actions towards said person? There have been situations in which guns have been held to babies heads, people have been tied up and raped, there was even a case where the invaders tortured and killed their victims (though I don't think it was in Calgary).
I can honestly say, that if someone came through my front door right now, even if they had a gun, there is no way I would let them near my family and there is absolutely no way I would allow them to tie me up. I would rather take a bullet to the chest then give up any hope of defending myself or my loved ones. If the guy hurt or sexually assaulted my family I would not let him leave alive, there is no fucking way, if I had to kill the guy with my bare hands, as long as I am alive my only priority would be to end his life. Alot of the cases in which people are raped or tortured, they are held at gunpoint, and then after being tied up when they cannot defend themselves do these atrocities occur.
So TL, I know its not an overly cheerful dicussion, but what do you think about the topic? Do you think you should be able to shoot down anyone who enters your home? Do you think that you should only be able to use reasonable force? What even defines reasonable force? If 2-3 guys come into your home with bats and knives and you have a hanggun are you not just going to gun them down where they stand? I sure as hell would. What do you think about the texas "castle law" which enables homeowners or buisness owners to shoot down anyone forcefully entering their property? Do you think someone invading a home should forfeit their right to life?
I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them?
IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
On September 01 2009 16:10 StRyKeR wrote: I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
That story actually really surprises me. Do you know what state it was in because as any informed American knows the law can be vastly different from state to state, your story sounds like it could've happened in Texas or something. In Massachusetts I bet the guy wouldn't have gotten off too easily since his life wasn't in danger or anything. (Imo he has the right to shoot at the f*ckers though.)
On September 01 2009 16:10 StRyKeR wrote: I know that there was a case in America where a dude shot thieves trying to steal his car. There was a guy thief and his girlfriend, in the car and driving away when the girlfriend was shot and killed. The shooter, who was the owner of the car, wasn't charged for anything.
Don't know how the law is in Canada, but seeing these cases makes me think that in the States, you can be justified in shooting someone suspicious just for entering your home. I think the keyword is "suspicious" and as long as you can provide evidence that you didn't know the person or there was reasonable evidence to feel threatened, you're justified.
That story actually really surprises me. Do you know what state it was in because as any informed American knows the law can be vastly different from state to state, your story sounds like it could've happened in Texas or something. In Massachusetts I bet the guy wouldn't have gotten off too easily since his life wasn't in danger or anything. (Imo he has the right to shoot at the f*ckers though.)
I'm pretty sure I just read about that case 5 minutes ago, it was in Texas if its the same one you are referring to. I'm with Texas on this one, if someone comes into my home you can count on me shooting them. If I have to I will beat him to death with a fucking chair. I might let them go if they are making off with my shit, but honestly the law should protect anyone and everyone if they are defending their family and property. Anyone know of cases where the victim of the home invasion has been charged? I am really curious about this.
I think that the word minimum basically it means it scales for different situations? Like if someone unarmed breaks in you shouldn't shoot them but if your life is threatened then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. I personally wouldn't shoot someone for entering my home unless they were threatening me. Some people have gone fucking insane and shot people like right away and I think that is wrong. Like that example of the woman in the car, if they are driving away they obviously aren't threatening his life but yet he unloads on them? Thats pretty fucked up to punish their theft with death and he didn't get charged.
On September 01 2009 16:22 Slaughter wrote: I think that the word minimum basically it means it scales for different situations? Like if someone unarmed breaks in you shouldn't shoot them but if your life is threatened then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. I personally wouldn't shoot someone for entering my home unless they were threatening me. Some people have gone fucking insane and shot people like right away and I think that is wrong. Like that example of the woman in the car, if they are driving away they obviously aren't threatening his life but yet he unloads on them? Thats pretty fucked up to punish their theft with death and he didn't get charged.
I think the law in Texas (where this happened) is that if you feel that by allowing them to escape you potentially give up any hope of recovering said property then you can fire upon them. This part I am not really sure whether or not I agree with, however its one hell of a way to deter thieves. People would sure think twice about stealing your shit.
It's left open to interpretation for a reason. If they have a knife and are threatening you after breaking and entering, shooting them in the head does qualify as minimum force. If you feel your life is endangered you can, that is. Anyone brandishing a weapon to me is enough to make me pull the trigger (oh wait I don't own a gun... =[ )
Here in Missouri we have a thing called the Castle Doctrine which basically means your home is your castle. To break it down in to realistic terms with actual cases. Someone comes into your house by force, feel free to kill them and you're off the hook pretty much guaranteed. The OP and anyone who has legitimate concerns, yes you're absolutely right in your concerns. A guy trying to steal your car, a bike, whatever, that's property. Same thing with a carjacking really, but regardless with pertinence to your house. People aren't just accidentally going the wrong way, they had full intent to enter your home, the one place you should be safer than any other and they're compromising your security(real security not the fake curtain drawn over style security)by committing the act.
I really would feel horrible to find out if someone was defending their own life or their family's lives and got punished for it by being in their own home. Realistically you can say what you want about guns, but bare minimum a gun in the home is just smart--I'm not excluding proper training and familiarity with them either though. Hell chambering a pump shotgun a lone can make most of those bastards to get the hell out, but yeah not that I'm familiar with Canadian politics, but maybe even do what you can to get something like that passed in your area.
Self defense laws in the US vary greatly from state to state, but the bottom line is if your going to carry a firearm you better know the law and be trained well how to use it. Look at this poor bastered here.
On September 01 2009 16:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: Self defense laws in the US vary greatly from state to state, but the bottom line is if your going to carry a firearm you better know the law and be trained well how to use it. Look at this poor bastered here.
They came in with a pistol. Their fault, imo. I'd shoot someone to make sure they were dead if they pointed a gun at me. C'mon, how many movies have you seen where you get the person unconscious and 20 minutes later the body is gone and they are alive again ready to kill you?
I'm not sure how I feel about these laws but frankly if you're bold/stupid enough to walk onto someone's property with malicious intent then you should be prepared to be killed. If you're on someone else's property by accident or whatever then beware because they could shoot you out of ignorance. Plus, there are a lot of people who would shoot first ask questions later with this law.
In 2007 Texas expanded its right to the use of deadly force in defense:
The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.
The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:
- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.
The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.
Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row.
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them?
IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
yeah.. i'm honestly saying that, why would i want to kill someone who isn't threatening my life anyway.
I doubt anyone here will immediately open fire on an intruder without giving them some warning to flee. Why would you want to kill somebody in your house? The blood goes everywhere, underneath carpet / tile. You'd have to rip up your floor if you want to clean it completely. Everytime you walk past that area in your house you will not be able to think of anything else but the time you killed a guy and he bled out on your floor and emptied his bowels while choking on his own blood and vomit. Then what do you do as he is wallowing in a pool of his own blood, spraying it all over your furniture and walls, gargling for mercy? Obviously you'd have to shoot him again or risk replacing your sofa and repainting your walls which probably costs more to replace than anything he could have ran off with.
Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life? Property [ ] Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary: Bare hands [ ] Improvised weapon [ ] Knife [ ] Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible: Yes [ ] No [ ]
btw, generally the self-defense rule for a guy with a gun against a guy with a knife is that if the guy with a knife is 21 feet or closer (~7m) then you can shoot them
are you a policeman blackjack? no sarcasm intended.
On another note, I will be willing to sacrifice jail time for my family. But of course providing warning to the perpetrator is important before shooting.. I don't believe in shoot first, ask questions later which is for those pussy ass dirty harry wannabees.
Here the law states that the minimum force is to either shoot that person at the leg or arms. If you actually kill him in self defense there will still be jail time until proven innocent
On September 01 2009 19:51 General Nuke Em wrote: Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life? Property [ ] Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary: Bare hands [ ] Improvised weapon [ ] Knife [ ] Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible: Yes [ ] No [ ]
if they are approaching me with a melee weapon, they're getting a bullet in each knee if they are running away with my shit, they are getting a bullet in one knee if i see a range weapon, and they turn to face me, they are getting a bullet in the chest
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
of course you should be limited by law on how you deal with intruders. If a couple of kids broke your window and was just fooling around in a truth or dare, you would be a fucking psychopath to blow their heads off.
as the poster above said, chill the fuck out and stop showing off your e-penis.
You should buy more guns imo also i would recommand to give some to your young childs because they need to learn how to shoot thieves. Moreover i always wear a bullet proof jacket and i feel safe. It is a bit difficult to play bw with this kind of heavy "clothes" but it is really helpfull if you want to survive.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
It's easy to take the moral high ground, but what would you do if someone breaks into your house? Are you willing to take the chance that he is there just to steal your TV, or your wife's jewelry, or if he's some lunatic that might murder your whole family? If you ask me, you shoot first and ask questions later.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
It's easy to take the moral high ground, but what would you do if someone breaks into your house? Are you willing to take the chance that he is there just to steal your TV, or your wife's jewelry, or if he's some lunatic that might murder your whole family? If you ask me, you shoot first and ask questions later.
Honestly, unless your family is part of the mafia, what are the chances that someone is going to break into your house and murder your family?
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
It's easy to take the moral high ground, but what would you do if someone breaks into your house? Are you willing to take the chance that he is there just to steal your TV, or your wife's jewelry, or if he's some lunatic that might murder your whole family? If you ask me, you shoot first and ask questions later.
Honestly, unless your family is part of the mafia, what are the chances that someone is going to break into your house and murder your family?
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
It's easy to take the moral high ground, but what would you do if someone breaks into your house? Are you willing to take the chance that he is there just to steal your TV, or your wife's jewelry, or if he's some lunatic that might murder your whole family? If you ask me, you shoot first and ask questions later.
Honestly, unless your family is part of the mafia, what are the chances that someone is going to break into your house and murder your family?
I agree that the chances are pretty small. But there are lunatics out there (even though once again they are a very small percentage).
But also, how else are people supposed to learn to respect other people's property? Most people wouldn't go around breaking into houses, but the few that would need to be deterred by the potential consequences: death or intense pain in the form of holes in your kneecaps.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
Explain to me a situation where an intruder breaks into your house but "poses no threat".
On September 01 2009 19:58 BlackJack wrote: btw, generally the self-defense rule for a guy with a gun against a guy with a knife is that if the guy with a knife is 21 feet or closer (~7m) then you can shoot them
That has no application pertaining to home invasions. In fact, its pretty much confined purely to concealed carry permit holders.
I can actually speak from personal experience here, as not even 3 weeks ago somebody broke into my house while I was sleeping upstairs, and my dad was working out in the back in his shop. As chance goes, my dad happened to walk into the house as the dude was going through his desk drawers, taking whatever cash he could find. The guy was unarmed and attempted to escape, but needless to say, my dad caught him and gave him a fairly good beating. When we later called the police to have this man arrested, the only thing the cop said to my father after he explained the story was, "Good job."
I believe that even had we KILLED the intruder, we still would've gotten a slap on our backs. This man had also broken into several houses previously, including seniors with Alzheimer's and my Pastor neighbor's house. There was no doubt in my mind that had he gotten away, the robberies would've continued.
To you people who have no experience in this issue, it is EXTREMELY easy to say, "Let them go", as I probably would've been one of these people before somebody actually broke into my house. Also, keep in mind that this man was UNARMED. Robbers without arms are dangerous enough, let alone somebody who has the nerve to walk into your house with a gun. Shoot first, questions later. Or else you could sorely regret it.
Yay romance actually gets it. He doesn't give benefit of the doubt to someone forcing their way into your home. Also as far as aiming to hit legs or arms, realize its a very high stress situation and however accurate you are, it gets cut by approximately 50%. That means even the best, well trained people have 50% of their normal accuracy in a high stress situation such as these. So to the guy who thinks he can justifiably aim and hit an arm or a leg(granted legs are easier) you're out of your mind. Romance glad to hear you had a peaceful resolve and none of your family(the good guys) got harmed by that asshole(bad guy).
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
wow... i never realised how many insane people there were out there, you know the chances seem higher than i will accidentally enter someones property and get shot rather than being murdered by some random lunatic. You guys are the fucking lunatics, if someone breaks into your home 99,9% chance is he's just there to rob you, you don't shoot robbers you fucking freaks.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
you probably dont look like a thief.
Who looks like a thief, then? Do I have to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, and/or have a certain skin colour?
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
I'm the crazy one because I don't feel that I should have my family and I's life in jeopardy? I'm not sure how you guys have developed this picturesque notion of the friendly neighborhood robber on Cherry Tree Lane. I'd rather be alive and a "lunatic" than dead and thinking they're just there to be friendly and make off with my tv and we can all live peacefully. There's lots of times people rob people, hoping no one is home, turns out there was, they panic, something happens to the home owner andd gg your logic gets thrown out the window. You'd seriously just lie down and let them do as they please? Huh...I guess I'm crazy after all.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
you probably dont look like a thief.
Who looks like a thief, then? Do I have to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, and/or have a certain skin colour?
a theif knows what he is doing is wrong and will act differently from someone that accidentally entered a home.
On September 01 2009 16:17 Misrah wrote: I know that in america, you can do what you like- under these conditions:
You can only shoot the intruder when they are attacking you / threatening you. They must be facing/running towards you.
If you shoot them at any other time, they or their family can press charges and you can be tried for murder.
Ie. if they have a gun and have their backs faced twards you and are running away, shooting them would be a crime.
Then you don't know your own country very well, because a man in texas shot an unarmed kid in the back of the head while he was kneeling in front of him, execution-style, and got away scot free.
On September 02 2009 00:11 nttea wrote: wow... i never realised how many insane people there were out there, you know the chances seem higher than i will accidentally enter someones property and get shot rather than being murdered by some random lunatic. You guys are the fucking lunatics, if someone breaks into your home 99,9% chance is he's just there to rob you, you don't shoot robbers you fucking freaks.
1st of all, robbers are acting against society and attacking you personally, both mentally (you'll be paranoid about people breaking into your home forever) and financially. It's really not a shame to rid society of people who care so little of others that they would do something like this.
2nd, with your 99.9% statistic, that means that after a few hundred or so people break into your home, you would expect that at least one is going to fall into the .01% of people who intend to harm you. Would you be willing to give your own life right now in exchange for the lives of 300 potentially "just robbers"? I know I wouldn't.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
you probably dont look like a thief.
Who looks like a thief, then? Do I have to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, and/or have a certain skin colour?
a theif knows what he is doing is wrong and will act differently from someone that accidentally entered a home.
Great. How do you define "differently"? How do you know that they act differently? Are you, or have you been a thief before? Alternatively, do you work for law-reinforcement that gives you such experience and knowledge?
EDIT: a few months ago, a professor from Harvard University was arrested for appearing suspicious at his own home. I cannot imagine what would happen if he accidentally barked at the wrong door.
On September 01 2009 16:24 benjammin wrote: wait a minute, i didn't order any pizza... KABLAMMMM
I know it's a joke, but there's actually a real lot of scams that go on like this, esp with the older folks. Pizza/water guy/pse&g or whatever comes to the front door, distracts them while a crew goes in through the back and takes whatever.
The real fear is "what if they come back?" which in itself is pretty unnerving. If you kill the intruder, you know for a fact that he's not coming back. If you scare him off, how do you know he won't come back with a knife? If you beat him and he escapes, how do you know he won't come back with a gun? Home invasions are pretty scary simply because you don't know who the intruder is, how long he's been stalking your home and logging your schedule, or what his mental state is. If you have kids or a wife/girlfriend that get home before you do, how do you know he won't come back and threaten them? Not knowing is a big reason why so many gun advocates believe in "shoot first", because you don't know whether the invader will retaliate or make it into something personal.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
If an armed robber breaks into your home, you honestly believe you are safer with no weapon? What is your course of action, gather the family and hide under a bed waiting for the police? Also, even if only .1% of robbers will kill you in order to take your things, are you saying it is better to just accept that this will happen in order to make robbing someones home a little less risky?
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
you probably dont look like a thief.
Who looks like a thief, then? Do I have to dress a certain way, speak a certain way, and/or have a certain skin colour?
a theif knows what he is doing is wrong and will act differently from someone that accidentally entered a home.
Great. How do you define "differently"? How do you know that they act differently? Are you, or have you been a thief before? Alternatively, do you work for law-reinforcement that gives you such experience and knowledge?
EDIT: a few months ago, a professor from Harvard University was arrested for appearing suspicious at his own home. I cannot imagine what would happen if he accidentally barked at the wrong door.
The harvard professor was arrested for disorderly conduct after acting belligerently to an officer who was responding to a concerned call from a neighbor. Also, is it a common occurence for someone to "accidentally" enter a house that is not theirs? Seems a little far fetched to me.
On September 01 2009 16:17 Misrah wrote: I know that in america, you can do what you like- under these conditions:
You can only shoot the intruder when they are attacking you / threatening you. They must be facing/running towards you.
If you shoot them at any other time, they or their family can press charges and you can be tried for murder.
Ie. if they have a gun and have their backs faced twards you and are running away, shooting them would be a crime.
Then you don't know your own country very well, because a man in texas shot an unarmed kid in the back of the head while he was kneeling in front of him, execution-style, and got away scot free.
They broke in to steal some food
That's correct, although I wouldn't use cases as for a basis, but rather the law and as I said in my state and several others(such as Florida) the Castle Doctrine applies, its law, look it up.
I'm still baffled why people would be accidentally breaking into houses.....one of you please explain your reasoning.
On September 01 2009 16:17 Misrah wrote: I know that in america, you can do what you like- under these conditions:
You can only shoot the intruder when they are attacking you / threatening you. They must be facing/running towards you.
If you shoot them at any other time, they or their family can press charges and you can be tried for murder.
Ie. if they have a gun and have their backs faced twards you and are running away, shooting them would be a crime.
Then you don't know your own country very well, because a man in texas shot an unarmed kid in the back of the head while he was kneeling in front of him, execution-style, and got away scot free.
They broke in to steal some food
That's correct, although I wouldn't use cases as for a basis, but rather the law and as I said in my state and several others(such as Florida) the Castle Doctrine applies, its law, look it up.
I'm still baffled why people would be accidentally breaking into houses.....one of you please explain your reasoning.
It's actually the other way around. Despite what the law says, using cases as precedence is very powerful, since the law is always up to interpretation, but precedence isn't.
If a guy threatens your life, its ok to kill him. eg. knife held to your throat during a mugging.
If a guy takes your stuff, it is NOT ok to kill him. eg. robber driving off in your car. Plenty of people have said it well so I dont need to, but I will add:
If someone poses no threat to you/your families well being, or any threat has passed, you have no right to kill them. Bit of a roughing up to defend your stuff is fine. Killing no.
Even if someone does threaten you, killing them is the second worst case scenario. You dieing is the worst case. Anybody dieing is wrong if it could have been helped.
Have you guys ever stared down at the other end of a gun before? It's quite frightening. Ever got beaten up by a gun before? there's a lot of talk about self defense and what you would do but what if they outnumber you and outpower you? its easy to act tough online I would obviously summon my lvl 100 Pikachu to defend me. I know what you're thinking... and yes I did stop his evolution to Raichu and rigged him with rare candy.
What about bobby trap your house? Is that illeagle? Wasn't a shop owner charged in the state, because he placed a shotgun trap on a window at his shop, and a thief got shot trying to enter it.
On September 02 2009 01:07 Forgottenfrog wrote: Have you guys ever stared down at the other end of a gun before? It's quite frightening. Ever got beaten up by a gun before? there's a lot of talk about self defense and what you would do but what if they outnumber you and outpower you? its easy to act tough online I would obviously summon my lvl 100 Pikachu to defend me. I know what you're thinking... and yes I did stop his evolution to Raichu and rigged him with rare candy.
don't you need a lightning stone or something to make him evolve? He didn't evolve naturally iirc
On September 01 2009 19:51 General Nuke Em wrote: + Show Spoiler +
Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life? Property [ ] Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary: Bare hands [ ] Improvised weapon [ ] Knife [ ] Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Thank you for your time!
404th post. HTML Error: Sense not found.
When they say minimum amount necessary, then they mean don't shoot a guy for walking off with your Bose speakers. But I think the keyword is necessary, rather than minimum. If shooting a gun becomes necessary then you fire with intent to kill. Neutralize the threat. Firing a gun to disable when in a self defense situation is still considered taking lethal force by you, and if you use potential lethal force and he gets stopped without killing him YOU will get persecuted. As far as I know anyway. It's been a while since I've looked into this.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: 1. You are in no danger
I hope when compiling this list of reasons why defending your property with force is unjustifiable that you didn't put them in order of strongest to weakest. Assuming you are in no danger when someone breaks into your house is a ridiculous thing to say.
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
What does this even mean? We're not in a courtroom. Defending yourself has nothing to do with punishment.
The punishment for ATTEMPTED MURDER is not death. So using this logic, you are still not justified in killing someone even if they are trying to kill you.
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
This is a ridiculous thing to say. I guess it's safe to say that if you were in the 4th hijacked airplane on 9/11 you would have waited to be flown into a building? This is entirely your opinion as clearly the law offers protections for people that act to uphold the law and allows people to make "citizen's arrests."
4. This is how innocent people get killed
Because nobody has ever been killed while cooperating, right? This isn't really even an argument for or against the justification of killing someone in self-defense. It's the innocent person's choice if he wants to defend his property.
On September 01 2009 16:17 Misrah wrote: I know that in america, you can do what you like- under these conditions:
You can only shoot the intruder when they are attacking you / threatening you. They must be facing/running towards you.
If you shoot them at any other time, they or their family can press charges and you can be tried for murder.
Ie. if they have a gun and have their backs faced twards you and are running away, shooting them would be a crime.
Then you don't know your own country very well, because a man in texas shot an unarmed kid in the back of the head while he was kneeling in front of him, execution-style, and got away scot free.
They broke in to steal some food
That's correct, although I wouldn't use cases as for a basis, but rather the law and as I said in my state and several others(such as Florida) the Castle Doctrine applies, its law, look it up.
I'm still baffled why people would be accidentally breaking into houses.....one of you please explain your reasoning.
It's actually the other way around. Despite what the law says, using cases as precedence is very powerful, since the law is always up to interpretation, but precedence isn't.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
He said it all. Bravo man! Totally agreed.
And I would like to add that if you have the right to shoot a person in your home no matter what (if you feel hes going to steal/harm you in any way) thats just plain stupid. That would just opened a hole in a law where person can kill anyone and then state he/she felt frightened by that persons actions...
I'm not sure if the statistics on home invasion are that much lower where I live or if our media just doesn't blow its importance out of proportion. I just don't see home invasion as a threat to me in any way. As long as I'm not involved in organized crime myself then why the hell would anyone go into my apartment and try to kill me? I sleep with my apartment door unlocked.
I think the focus should be how to reduce the already low figures on home invasion not what you can and cant do in the rare occasion that it actually does happen. If someone was actively threatening your life I agree that you should be allowed to defend yourself. However the first lesson when getting robbed is to do whatever the robber tells you to. If you aren't stupid you just give him what he wants. I also don't think people should be allowed to own guns unless they have a hunting license or are policemen.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
He said it all. Bravo man! Totally agreed.
And I would like to add that if you have the right to shoot a person in your home no matter what (if you feel hes going to steal/harm you in any way) thats just plain stupid. That would just opened a hole in a law where person can kill anyone and then state he/she felt frightened by that persons actions...
Such hypothetical concerns would be dealt with by a judge and jury. Our legal system is filled with vague wording that is open to interpretation.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911?
@illu, Are you joking when you point out the unlikeliehood of a robber breaking into your house to kill you? Because in the first post you think guns should be banned in case "I accidentally enter someone's unlocked home and get shot." I can guarentee you one of these 2 things happens a lot more often than the other yet you think guns should be banned to prevent the one that almost NEVER happens from happening? C'mon......
I'd also like you comment on what you said, "..Robbers do not break into your home to kill you." Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that is why they are called "robbers." I think they are there to steal property, it's pretty much the meaning to their name. The town I live in (gainesville, FL) is built around the university here which is pretty big with 50,000+ students. In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
P.S. you'll be glad to know that the serial killer I spoke of was executed around the time of my first semester here.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911?
@illu, Are you joking when you point out the unlikeliehood of a robber breaking into your house to kill you? Because in the first post you think guns should be banned in case "I accidentally enter someone's unlocked home and get shot." I can guarentee you one of these 2 things happens a lot more often than the other yet you think guns should be banned to prevent the one that almost NEVER happens from happening? C'mon......
I'd also like you comment on what you said, "..Robbers do not break into your home to kill you." Correct me if I am wrong, but I am fairly sure that is why they are called "robbers." I think they are there to steal property, it's pretty much the meaning to their name. The town I live in (gainesville, FL) is built around the university here which is pretty big with 50,000+ students. In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
P.S. you'll be glad to know that the serial killer I spoke of was executed around the time of my first semester here.
Im sure the killer only broke in to rape them, but was forced to stab them when they tried to defend themselves. If they had just willingly had sex with the intruder, no lives would had been lost.
There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy.
On September 02 2009 02:36 gLyo wrote: There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy.
I'll say it again.
If someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot.
On September 02 2009 02:36 gLyo wrote: There are a lot of internet tough guys in this thread.
If someone broke into my apartment, or even tried to mug me, I would not try to fight them because that would escalate the situation. A thief rarely enters your home wanting to kill you or even harm you, but they are probably equipped to do it if you don't simply give them what they want.
Most of you guys who want to blow the burglars head off would probably be too busy pissing yourself to even aim a gun. Being a badass on the internet is easy.
I'll say it again.
If someone breaks into my home, they're getting shot.
When you say it like that, it sounds so simple, but it's not. What if the burglar has a gun and sees you first? What if you shoot and miss? What if it's not a burglar at all, but a family member coming home late and making a din and you can't tell through the dark? There are a million possibilities that make trying to shoot a burglar more dangerous than complying with him.
Not to mention the fact that taking another human beings life is a pretty heavy weight to carry.
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
That is probably the best argument against drawing a gun on robbers, especially so if they are armed. Doing so only makes them desperate and raises the tension of the situation dramatically.
Has it ever occured to you that people that choose to defend their property are well aware of the added risk to their life? Has it occured to you that some people prefer to fight for what is right, and what they believe in, instead of locking themselves in a bathroom and calling 911? .
That's fine, as long as these people value their property and their sense of what's "right" moreso than their own existence. It's a matter of utility, I suppose.
The way I feel is if somebody is armed and robbing my house, I'd politely ask them to leave before I shoot them. If they don't then I shoot. And I'll shoot to kill, fuck shooting people in the knee, that allows them to go to court and say shit like "I wasn't charging at him, there was a ghost behind him and I was trying to save his life". Ok that's stupid, but once they try to sue me they sure as hell aren't going to admit to trying to charge/shoot me after robbing me.
Of course, if possible I'd rather not have to kill anyone, but if I felt my or my families life was threatened I wouldn't hesitate to kill. I'd put the whole clip in him (or enough to guarantee his death.).
Also, if you do find yourself having killed someone, its recommended to piss yourself and/or have a drink of alcohol (just A drink, don't get drunk that's just stupid) after so its obvious you were scared/distressed by the whole incident.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
Reminds me of the large sticker on the dark back door of my house. It is skulls and crossbones that says "There is nothing in here worth your life" :p
But if I heard an intruder in the house late at night, I would call the cops, and scream for them to GTFO, but if they tried coming upstairs, all bets are off.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
He said it all. Bravo man! Totally agreed.
And I would like to add that if you have the right to shoot a person in your home no matter what (if you feel hes going to steal/harm you in any way) thats just plain stupid. That would just opened a hole in a law where person can kill anyone and then state he/she felt frightened by that persons actions...
The law has tons of things like this, they just add a reasonable person clause. It wouldn't be, "If a person feels threatened," it would be, "If a reasonable person would feel threatened."
On September 02 2009 00:04 illu wrote: What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
Brilliant! No need for self defense laws if we make law abiding citizens defenseless! If only we could all see things as clearly as you do.
You may think it's ridiculous, but robbers do not break into your home to kill you - with very few exceptions (probably less likely than being killed by lightning). They break into your home because they want money, and the gun is just to scare you.
On the other hand, if you bring a gun to defend yourself, the situation changes. The robber is human too - and thus will defend his life at all costs. When you point your gun at him, despite your so-called "just causes", you just made the robber to be more likely to open fire.
So your saying that because the robber might have a gun you should just do nothing and let this guy do whatever he wants?
If someone breaks into my house, id offer them religious advice, then try to exorcise them from the demons comanding their actions, if he kills me, that is god's will.
My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA.
On September 02 2009 03:48 Forgottenfrog wrote: My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA.
How is risking your health/life for material gain ever a good thing?
I think it needs to be clearly stated for the fairy tale weirdos that no one is talking about having your door open, a family member walking in, you think they're breaking in and shoot them. Quite frankly I'll pay you 5 bucks if you can find such a story. What everyone that is leveled headed is referring to is that if you know they're breaking in, i.e. a door being smashed in, a broken window, etc. etc. Actual obvious signs of an intrusion that's when people are referring to taking action.
Here's what kills me though, you guys so desperately want a perfect world where we don't have guns and you want them to be gone away with yet at the very same time, you're saying its ok if criminals including robbers and potential murderers exist because...they don't deserve to die. So we're here at Point A, you wanna get to perfect world at Point B, but it sounds like you're ok if along the way getting to point B, we have all the innocent people dead from not being able to defend themselves and thieves running rampant.
The people robbing homes know just as much what they're doing and the risks involved as the person defending their home. Ever wonder why more gun crimes occur in gun-FREE zones? Because the criminals know they have a lessened chance of great bodily harm or death. If you guys live in a country where you really have zero to worry about, more power to you. Frankly in America though we have guns and even if the law abiding citizens get rid of theirs, criminals still have them so disarming doesn't work. Secondly with the economy in the shitter and more people out of work than ever, people get desperate which justifies it even more.
Bottom line is: be polite, respect others, and no harm will be done. None of us are people who wanna go to OTHERS people homes and harm them, but we just want to be at our home, safe, and with our families. That's life, you live, you die, but nothing is more important than family.
On September 02 2009 03:48 Forgottenfrog wrote: My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA.
How is risking your health/life for material gain ever a good thing?
Imagine how much he would be bullied by his old vet buddies if he didnt get beat up...
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you wouldn't shoot them if your life depended on it? People aren't always so rational when faced with some crazy bastard(s) breaking into your home. Are you saying that it's better to be tied up and killed? That's just ridiculous tbh. Of course people should be able to defend themselves by any means necessary, everything else is just some theorycrafting.
On September 02 2009 03:48 Forgottenfrog wrote: My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA.
How is risking your health/life for material gain ever a good thing?
What kind of coward, defeatist attitude is that though? That is sort of accepting the criminals doing what they want and just roll over. It's obviously not just about loosing some things but to be brutalized and have someone enter your home and do what the hell they want. It's not okay for obvious reasons.
The self-protection laws in Sweden are the worst ever btw. The guy protecting himself will many times be sued by the criminal who commited the crime in the first place and chances are that the victim of the original crime ends up getting fucked over due to the fact that he defended himself "too much". C'mon, he's not the one doing the original crime and he just reacted in a very normal way.
While people getting shot obviously isn't a good thing, nobody should tell you that you can't defend yourself, your family or property if necessary.
Fighting off a theif that you think you could actually stop non-lethally isn't just about protecting your family/possessions, in my opinion. There's also them actually being charged and punished for the crimes they committed, and I think that's one of the things that would stop me from saying "oh well I can just get another :insert shit taken:".
And I remember talking about this in Criminal Justice class last year. Basically you can use the same force as the intruder, plus one level higher. Meaning if your intruder has no weapon, you can probably beat him/her down with a bat (in my case, a golf club that I for some reason have in my room). If your indruder has a knife, you can shoot (hopefully only enough to "stop" them, not kill them) When it becomes you shooting some unarmed guy who wasn't actually threatening you, it's an issue. Of course you can fight that, but everything else would get you off ezpz.
That being in New York, not sure about other states.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
It seems like most of you guys agree with me. As for those who are saying that you shouldn't hurt the poor thieves... I don't care what the odds are, I don't care if the person only came into the house just to steal shit. If he is armed or forced entry by whatever means, as far as I am concerned, hes getting shot. Random innocent people do not force entry into a house at night. Obviously if someone walks in my front door in the middle of the day I'm not going to just shoot them, but if its late, and someone tries to kick down my door, they are getting shot period. There is no way, however little the chance, that I would ever give up my ability to defend myself. Letting theives tie you up is probably the worst possible thing I can imagine, because you are fully submitting to their will. If it were just me living in an apartment I would probably be fairly passive and attempt to get them to leave, but if my girlfriend or sister was in the house, there is no fucking way that person is leaving alive unless they turn and run the fuck away the second they realize I am there. As far as shooting thieves who are running with property, I am not really sure where I stand on that. As mentioned before if they know you are armed, and are keeping track of your schedule and you chase them off with a gun, they may come back at a different time when you are not there, they may come back with guns, more people etc. they may make it personal. I think those are all good reasons to shoot someone who is trying to steal your shit, however there are some people who are just desperate. Regardless they should respect the law. I would definitely use discretion under a castle-doctrine, and since the law here minimal force I would have to let them go, but it would be tempting ill tell you that much.
If someone forces entry into my home, I consider them to be threatening the safety of my family and myself. Simple as that.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
I can understand why his position is emotional. The mere idea that it would be possible for someone to enter my home and stab/rape my family is the most enraging thing I can think of.
On September 01 2009 16:04 Wr3k wrote: Quoted from an RCMP officer: "The Criminal Code authorizes people to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves and their property," she said. "However, that force must be the minimum amount necessary." Cpl. Patty Neely of the Strathmore RCMP.
Do you agree with this? If someone comes into your home with the intent to threaten your life and steal your shit do you really think you should be limited in your actions towards said person? There have been situations in which guns have been held to babies heads, people have been tied up and raped, there was even a case where the invaders tortured and killed their victims (though I don't think it was in Calgary).
You're kinda blowing this out of proportion. 'minimum amount necessary' means that you automatically get to match what they have without breaking any laws. If they have a gun or knife and are able to threaten your life you can reciprocate. But if they aren't armed at all are just being a dick on your lawn yelling and screaming then threatening to call the cops or giving them a nice shiner would be well within your rights. And if you're say, half the size of the dude and have no way of matching him then you would be very allowed to have a knife or gun. Just try to use it to scare them away and not preemptively attack them.
If someone breaks into your house and is armed you can shoot them. This thread is getting out of hand.
Although the chances of a serial killer or rapist breaking into your home is quite minute, and the chances that you'll be awake and in the same place as your loaded gun are even smaller.
Do that many of you have a fuckin gun in your house? My god...
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
Here is what he said on his first post..
"What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
How many people have been shot after "accidentally" entering somebody's home? I think we can agree that our opinion of "being objective" is different if you think it's being objective to mock the probability of someone assaulting you in your home while advocating the ban of firearms because there is a chance you could accidentally enter someone's house and be shot.
P.S. and totally off-topic, the town I group in and where my parents still live is Hollywood Florida. We are famous for being the city where America's Most Wanted Host John Walsh's son was cut to pieces and dumped in a canal. It happens more often than you would think.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
"What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
How many people have been shot after "accidentally" entering somebody's home? I think we can agree that our opinion of "being objective" is different if you think it's being objective to mock the probability of someone assaulting you in your home while advocating the ban of firearms because there is a chance you could accidentally enter someone's house and be shot.
P.S. and totally off-topic, the town I group in and where my parents still live is Hollywood Florida. We are famous for being the city where America's Most Wanted Host John Walsh's son was cut to pieces and dumped in a canal. It happens more often than you would think.
I'd love for someone to bring up some statistics of how often people enter houses with the intent of killing random people.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
Here is what he said on his first post..
"What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
How many people have been shot after "accidentally" entering somebody's home? I think we can agree that our opinion of "being objective" is different if you think it's being objective to mock the probability of someone assaulting you in your home while advocating the ban of firearms because there is a chance you could accidentally enter someone's house and be shot.
P.S. and totally off-topic, the town I group in and where my parents still live is Hollywood Florida. We are famous for being the city where America's Most Wanted Host John Walsh's son was cut to pieces and dumped in a canal. It happens more often than you would think.
I'd love for someone to bring up some statistics of how often people enter houses with the intent of killing random people.
Id love to bring up statistics of who would kill to protect their family from physical harm. Oh wait no need, its 100%. Sure you are more likely to die in a car accident, or heart disease or something, but honestly I wouldn't gamble with my familys safety even if I had a 99% chance of winning.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
Id love to bring up statistics of who would kill to protect their family from physical harm. Oh wait no need, its 100%. Sure you are more likely to die in a car accident, or heart disease or something, but honestly I wouldn't gamble with my familys safety even if I had a 99% chance of winning.
lol ok -- so you patrol your house every night checking for fire hazards right?
or are you too busy protecting your family against shit that won't ever happen?
"i wouldn't gamble with my family's safety even if I had a 99% chance of winning"
you gamble with your family's safety everyday -- it's called living life.
in texas the laws are crazy. There was a guy who saw his neighbors being robbed and went after the kids with a shotgun down the street as they escaped. Can't remember what the outcome was but in texas you can kill people in your house and get away with it.
On September 02 2009 09:02 CharlieMurphy wrote: in texas the laws are crazy. There was a guy who saw his neighbors being robbed and went after the kids with a shotgun down the street as they escaped. Can't remember what the outcome was but in texas you can kill people in your house and get away with it.
i remember hearing a story on the radio about a guy who shot an armed robber in his store. he shot him, disarmed him, and that was it -- the conflict was over and the kid was wounded and lying on the floor.
he leaves the room, comes back with another gun and shoots the helpless thief 5 more times and kills him.
everyone called him a hero, and all the people calling the radio station all supported his decision to kill the thief.
I don't own a gun, but sure as hell grabbing the bat / golf club / longest knife i can find and wacking / clubbing / slicing the bitch till i feel safe and then call the police.
I'd love for someone to bring up some statistics of how often people enter houses with the intent of killing random people.
I think it is obvious now what the law should be. If an armed robber breaks into your house, you have to wait until they shoot you before you can shoot them, because...well chances are they wont.
In the 90s there was a guy that went around breaking into young girls apartments, raping them, and stabbing them to death. Maybe in your fairytaile world, if ordinary citizens couldn't own guns and cooperated with intruders, they would never need to defend themselves, but in the real world it doesn't work that way.
And two week ago, a 5 years old boy in Ontario was killed by lightning. So yea, they seem to have about the same kind of risks.
So your point is that people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves from crimes that are rare? When your daughter is raped and cut into pieces then you can come back here and say that it's okay what happened to her because it was a 1 in a million shot.
Your stance on this subject is obviously emotional. His from what I understand is being objective. Those are the two stances on this subject and no matter what you do you will almost never change anybodies opinion on this. So I think its wrong to bring such a gross mis exaggeration of a situation that is probably a billion to one shot( since you added in the cut into pieces part ) into this conversation.
"What if someone's door was unlocked, and for whatever reason only god knows, I entered purely by accident? Do I get shot?
I think it's bogus; in the end, it's the gun law that causes this problem. If no ordinary citizens can own guns, we won't need stupid laws like this.
How many people have been shot after "accidentally" entering somebody's home? I think we can agree that our opinion of "being objective" is different if you think it's being objective to mock the probability of someone assaulting you in your home while advocating the ban of firearms because there is a chance you could accidentally enter someone's house and be shot.
P.S. and totally off-topic, the town I group in and where my parents still live is Hollywood Florida. We are famous for being the city where America's Most Wanted Host John Walsh's son was cut to pieces and dumped in a canal. It happens more often than you would think.
Maybe not people being shot by "accidentally" coming in to your home but by people who have the intent to steal things but are unarmed and try to escape when you present them with your weapon I believe that you should not have the right to shoot them unless they go for your gun then its fair game.
P.S. totally off-topic response to a totally off-topic topic, Was he raped though? if he was just cut up then it does not disprove the billion to one shot because the billion to one shot is if he was raped THEN cut up. Because of-course theirs a higher chance of you getting killed then cut into pieces than getting raped then killed then cut into pieces.
I'd love for someone to bring up some statistics of how often people enter houses with the intent of killing random people.
I think it is obvious now what the law should be. If an armed robber breaks into your house, you have to wait until they shoot you before you can shoot them, because...well chances are they wont.
I totally missed this was sarcastic for a few seconds and was piecing together an angry response in my mind lol.
Yeah you definitely can't deny people the right to defend themselves in their own homes... although limits have to be set for how easily you are allowed to just shoot at someone.... I'm not sure if I agree with the Texas mentality.
It's funny how everyone from a country other then America is going apeshit over the fact that we think shooting robbers is right.
I think that many other laws in other countries are better, but this is one that makes total sense. If we have the right to kill thieves, then won't they think twice about going into our houses?
On September 02 2009 10:55 GunsofthePatriots wrote: It's funny how everyone from a country other then America is going apeshit over the fact that we think shooting robbers is right.
I think that many other laws in other countries are better, but this is one that makes total sense. If we have the right to kill thieves, then won't they think twice about going into our houses?
Although I understand where you are coming from, be careful. You are stating your viewpoint as though it is somewhat revolutionary even though it is in part the foundation of the debate that's occurred between Americans and citizens of other countries for a long time.... so don't rush to take it as given.
edit: of course not all Americans or foreigners are in agreement amongst themselves either.
On September 02 2009 09:02 CharlieMurphy wrote: in texas the laws are crazy. There was a guy who saw his neighbors being robbed and went after the kids with a shotgun down the street as they escaped. Can't remember what the outcome was but in texas you can kill people in your house and get away with it.
i remember this case, here in texas this guy could have been convicted for shooting the burglars as they fled because at that point there is no immediate danger, but it comes down to the district attorney being willing to prosecute or not, seeing as the public was probably on the side of the neighbor even though the law was probably not, i'm fairly certain he didn't get charged with anything if i'm remembering correctly. so to clarify in texas you can shoot people if they come into your house to steal stuff or w/e pretty much without fear of prosecution, but if they are running away and you chase them and beat them up or shoot them you could certainly be prosecuted for agg assault or murder, w/e.
Also to add, texas is a little crazy i suppose, at nighttime it changes everything with respect to deadly force, you can use deadly force when acts are taking place at night time, offenses like criminal mischief and someone messing around in your car which aren't justifiable during the daytime change at night time. The problem I have is people being too quick to pull the trigger, people get killed over stealing a car stereo or a chair or some property worth a couple hundred bucks, i don't think that is just punishment, I also remembering hearing a story of a drunk guy who was from europe walking back to where he was staying, he was lost and walked into the wrong house and was shot trying to open the door. anyway most burglaries take place when no one is home, but those at night are pretty scary if you are home and warrant the necessary self defense
The clause is to prevent a free license to do anything you want to a person with the justification of self-defense. If they didn't have this clause, they couldn't lay a hand on you if you claim self-defense.
There's a point where you're afraid and there's a point where you want to punish them, and the point where you want to punish them makes you a killer.
For instance, a 10 year old teenager sneaks into your yard to vandalize your house. In response, you gun him down with an assault weapon, and then you pump his head full of bullets and set his body on fire. I'm pretty sure you should be prosecuted.
Or you find your significant other cheating on you with your best friend in your house. Trespasser! you yell before you set his balls on fire, cut his tendons, blindfold him and drown him in a toilet.
Defending yourself with deadly force is one thing. Thinking you should be able to carry out justice, and in effect execute the death penalty on your own is another.
On September 02 2009 09:02 CharlieMurphy wrote: in texas the laws are crazy. There was a guy who saw his neighbors being robbed and went after the kids with a shotgun down the street as they escaped. Can't remember what the outcome was but in texas you can kill people in your house and get away with it.
Here in Texas, pretty close to where I live (about 15 minutes), a man (Joe Horn was his name I think) saw his neighbors house being robbed, he called 911, and was with them for a couple of minutes, eventually he got his shotgun out and told the dispatch he was gonna shoot them, obviously 911 told him to calm down and stay in his home, he saw the guys running out of his neighbors house, ran ouside and shot them both. And the cops were right around the corner. The guy got off clean with nothing, but it sparked massive debates over laws here in texas.
Oo found the 911 call .. you can hear everything, from the loading of the gun to the shooting.
This may have been the story you were talking about.
Another crazy thing happened here in Texas, some teenage kids tried to rob a dude delivering ice cream and other snacks to a gas station, and one of them was shot and killed, and I dont think the guy got in any trouble.
I'm happy i lived my teenage years in germany and not in the USA. All you psycho cowboys in this thread would have probably killed me 5 times while I was in some other people's gardens at night playing a prank....
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
On September 02 2009 09:02 CharlieMurphy wrote: in texas the laws are crazy. There was a guy who saw his neighbors being robbed and went after the kids with a shotgun down the street as they escaped. Can't remember what the outcome was but in texas you can kill people in your house and get away with it.
Here in Texas, pretty close to where I live (about 15 minutes), a man (Joe Horn was his name I think) saw his neighbors house being robbed, he called 911, and was with them for a couple of minutes, eventually he got his shotgun out and told the dispatch he was gonna shoot them, obviously 911 told him to calm down and stay in his home, he saw the guys running out of his neighbors house, ran ouside and shot them both. And the cops were right around the corner. The guy got off clean with nothing, but it sparked massive debates over laws here in texas.
This may have been the story you were talking about.
Another crazy thing happened here in Texas, some teenage kids tried to rob a dude delivering ice cream and other snacks to a gas station, and one of them was shot and killed, and I dont think the guy got in any trouble.
On September 02 2009 12:46 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I'm happy i lived my teenage years in germany and not in the USA. All you psycho cowboys in this thread would have probably killed me 5 times while I was in some other people's gardens at night playing a prank....
Cowboys? o.O do not confuse Texas with the US as a whole.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Well, my dad is in the Army and knows how to use the hand-cannon.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
Then this is a result of poor decision making.
If she was being stalked to the point where she felt her life was in danger, what would you have done?
A.) Drop money on a gun to keep by your side in your house. If the man is stupid enough to cause a ruckus when he breaks in the house, you'll wake up and scare him away. If he enters the house quietly -- well you're dead, but at least you tried!
B.) This guys is truly stalking her to the point where her life is in danger? Call the cops, get this sorted out and show the guy that you mean business. He then knows that any attack against you or her will immediately put him as the prime suspect. If he is still crazy enough to come after your life(these stories are 1 in a billion), do you really think having a gun under your pillow is going to stop this man?
I hate to sound like a smartass, but any reasonable person would go with B. You are protecting her much more effectively by scaring the man away before he steps near your house. And if you are still that frightened and want that additional 0.0000001% chance for safety, you can still choose B and buy a gun.
I'm so against people who choose to keep guns because it's truly the last ditch effort against burglars.
If you choose to spend money on something that only works when you are alert and aware that a bad guy is in your house, then you would logically also have:
A house security system A dog Barred windows etc...
Now people might say, "oh but those are all so expensive" or "i dont want to take care of a dog" or "they make my house looks unfriendly" -- but ill keep a gun by me because I want to protect my family if that serial killer or rapist gets into my house and ill wake up and shoot him just like that.
if your willing to spend money on such an ineffective form of house defense because you want to protect your family -- well your putting them in more danger by not having the rest of the package that is proven to be more effective than a loaded firearm.
i understand people have firearms to make them feel safe and powerful, and how they carry the "no one messes with my family" attitude -- but it's an utterly ridiculous state of mind considering everything else.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Well, my dad is in the Army and knows how to use the hand-cannon.
But isn't the problem when your mom's alone, not when your dad's there? When your dad's there, the stalker has to get past his combat skills.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
Right, so if you have a gun, then you of course also have every other security measure in and around your house to protect your family.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
Right, so if you have a gun, then you of course also have every other security measure in and around your house to protect your family.
If you don't, I question your intelligence.
Just like a law, a buzzing security system doesn't literally stop a person. If they're intent on doing something, it won't stop them which in fact the noise will only make it more difficult to know where the perp is. So...who's questioning intelligence here?
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
Right, so if you have a gun, then you of course also have every other security measure in and around your house to protect your family.
If you don't, I question your intelligence.
Just like a law, a buzzing security system doesn't literally stop a person. If they're intent on doing something, it won't stop them which in fact the noise will only make it more difficult to know where the perp is. So...who's questioning intelligence here?
Oh, so the gun is for the guy that gets passed the locks, the bars, the security system, the dog, because he is after you and your family.
in which case i wouldn't question your intelligence, you are just loony.
im referring to the common thief, who (if he has the balls), will take as many things as possible as your dog is barking, as your alarms are sounding etc.. -- or will probably gtfo as fast as possible the moment he gives his presence away.
in which case i question why anyone would want to kill a petty thief who may be armed, and would retaliate if put in the situation. going after thieves is dangerous, you are protecting your family by letting him run from your alarms and dog, or taking what he wants -- you are endangering yourself and your loved ones by looking for a fight.
if you are that worried that he'll be a serial killer or a rapist, then as I said before -- i hope you send your kids to school in kevlar and with guns in their backpacks just in case a gunmen opens fire during class.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
Then this is a result of poor decision making.
If she was being stalked to the point where she felt her life was in danger, what would you have done?
A.) Drop money on a gun to keep by your side in your house. If the man is stupid enough to cause a ruckus when he breaks in the house, you'll wake up and scare him away. If he enters the house quietly -- well you're dead, but at least you tried!
B.) This guys is truly stalking her to the point where her life is in danger? Call the cops, get this sorted out and show the guy that you mean business. He then knows that any attack against you or her will immediately put him as the prime suspect. If he is still crazy enough to come after your life(these stories are 1 in a billion), do you really think having a gun under your pillow is going to stop this man?
I hate to sound like a smartass, but any reasonable person would go with B. You are protecting her much more effectively by scaring the man away before he steps near your house. And if you are still that frightened and want that additional 0.0000001% chance for safety, you can still choose B and buy a gun.
I'm so against people who choose to keep guns because it's truly the last ditch effort against burglars.
If you choose to spend money on something that only works when you are alert and aware that a bad guy is in your house, then you would logically also have:
A house security system A dog Barred windows etc...
Now people might say, "oh but those are all so expensive" or "i dont want to take care of a dog" or "they make my house looks unfriendly" -- but ill keep a gun by me because I want to protect my family if that serial killer or rapist gets into my house and ill wake up and shoot him just like that.
if your willing to spend money on such an ineffective form of house defense because you want to protect your family -- well your putting them in more danger by not having the rest of the package that is proven to be more effective than a loaded firearm.
i understand people have firearms to make them feel safe and powerful, and how they carry the "no one messes with my family" attitude -- but it's an utterly ridiculous state of mind considering everything else.
sorry if i offend.
This is the greatest post so far in this thread, please everybody read it again.
On September 02 2009 12:46 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I'm happy i lived my teenage years in germany and not in the USA. All you psycho cowboys in this thread would have probably killed me 5 times while I was in some other people's gardens at night playing a prank....
Cowboys? o.O do not confuse Texas with the US as a whole.
On September 02 2009 08:29 Valentine wrote: [quote] I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
Right, so if you have a gun, then you of course also have every other security measure in and around your house to protect your family.
If you don't, I question your intelligence.
Just like a law, a buzzing security system doesn't literally stop a person. If they're intent on doing something, it won't stop them which in fact the noise will only make it more difficult to know where the perp is. So...who's questioning intelligence here?
Oh, so the gun is for the guy that gets passed the locks, the bars, the security system, the dog, because he is after you and your family.
in which case i wouldn't question your intelligence, you are just loony.
im referring to the common thief, who (if he has the balls), will take as many things as possible as your dog is barking, as your alarms are sounding etc.. -- or will probably gtfo as fast as possible the moment he gives his presence away.
in which case i question why anyone would want to kill a petty thief who may be armed, and would retaliate if put in the situation. going after thieves is dangerous, you are protecting your family by letting him run from your alarms and dog, or taking what he wants -- you are endangering yourself and your loved ones by looking for a fight.
if you are that worried that he'll be a serial killer or a rapist, then as I said before -- i hope you send your kids to school in kevlar and with guns in their backpacks just in case a gunmen opens fire during class.
You know its crazy but shit like that does happen. Look at Sean Taylor. He was a professional football player who was alot bigger and stronger then any of us. Living in a big ass house in a nice area with a great security system. None of that stopped 4 nuts from breaking down his door and shooting him dead. Sure the security system alerted the police, but he was dead by then. Bet he wishes he had a gun and not needed it. Instead needing a gun and not having it and being well you know that 1 in a million dead guy.
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Hahahahahahah did everyone just skip over this post or what? Seriously? Did you even think before you wrote this?
So somebody who is planning on breaking into someone's house, which is a crime, in order to commit many more crimes, will be deterred by a piece of paper telling him not to do it?
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Don't know that, but if I had to assume, I'd say not. So continue on assuming that they did not.
I'm pretty sure the cheapest guns cost a couple hundred dollars, so a restraining order seems more worthwhile. Plus if you own the gun, you should spend the time practicing at a shooting range, which is even more time and money.
Andddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd if it protects your life, a couple hundred bucks is too much? Restraining orders don't stop people, unless someone is physically limited from attacking i.e. jail a law or ruling won't stop someone. Its that false sense of security we have, anyone can go anywhere and hurt someone, a law can't stop it, only provide repercussions if it does happen.
Police can readily admit, they can't get there in the blink of an eye, as I've said before, if you wanna risk it go for it, some of us purchased the insurance policy known as a gun.
Lastly, you'd be surprised how much recreational enjoyment you can gain from going to the range. Yes. you're right, if you're going to use a gun you need to be well trained in whatever system you adopt and be at expert proficiency, but again you're talking about your life, if you're penny pinching I'm kinda wondering why this is the area of all places you're thinking of doing so. Germany is a country where they can't even have violent video games and a guy is laughing at not having grown up in America, what a poor soul.
Right, so if you have a gun, then you of course also have every other security measure in and around your house to protect your family.
If you don't, I question your intelligence.
Just like a law, a buzzing security system doesn't literally stop a person. If they're intent on doing something, it won't stop them which in fact the noise will only make it more difficult to know where the perp is. So...who's questioning intelligence here?
Oh, so the gun is for the guy that gets passed the locks, the bars, the security system, the dog, because he is after you and your family.
in which case i wouldn't question your intelligence, you are just loony.
im referring to the common thief, who (if he has the balls), will take as many things as possible as your dog is barking, as your alarms are sounding etc.. -- or will probably gtfo as fast as possible the moment he gives his presence away.
in which case i question why anyone would want to kill a petty thief who may be armed, and would retaliate if put in the situation. going after thieves is dangerous, you are protecting your family by letting him run from your alarms and dog, or taking what he wants -- you are endangering yourself and your loved ones by looking for a fight.
if you are that worried that he'll be a serial killer or a rapist, then as I said before -- i hope you send your kids to school in kevlar and with guns in their backpacks just in case a gunmen opens fire during class.
You know its crazy but shit like that does happen. Look at Sean Taylor. He was a professional football player who was alot bigger and stronger then any of us. Living in a big ass house in a nice area with a great security system. None of that stopped 4 nuts from breaking down his door and shooting him dead. Sure the security system alerted the police, but he was dead by then. Bet he wishes he had a gun and not needed it. Instead needing a gun and not having it and being well you know that 1 in a million dead guy.
You're right, they do happen. People got shot up at my school (Norther Illinois University) during a typical classroom lecture -- crazy shit happens.
All I'm saying is, running your life around the possibilities of crazy shit happening is a stupid and costly way to live. If you want to drop a few hundred on a gun for that 0.000001% chance of that rapist busting through your window, go for it -- but if you don't have the full security system first, then what the hell is the point?
I can find news stories about crazy shit easily -- that's why it made the news isn't it? Because it almost never happens. And then people read about these stories and get scared, buy a gun, and they don't even have a security system or a even a dog? 0_o
Then they come on here and preach about protecting their families.
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Hahahahahahah did everyone just skip over this post or what? Seriously? Did you even think before you wrote this?
So somebody who is planning on breaking into someone's house, which is a crime, in order to commit many more crimes, will be deterred by a piece of paper telling him not to do it?
did you read my follow up post or do you honestly think that criminals are that dumb?
On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote: nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered."
id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep
if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony.
I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ]
I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level.
I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous.
I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family.
of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away.
but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help.
in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom.
that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep.
My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside.
Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything.
If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar.
Hahahahahahah did everyone just skip over this post or what? Seriously? Did you even think before you wrote this?
So somebody who is planning on breaking into someone's house, which is a crime, in order to commit many more crimes, will be deterred by a piece of paper telling him not to do it?
did you read my follow up post or do you honestly think that criminals are that dumb?
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him.
if they may be armed why would you even think of confronting them with a gun over a DVD player and some jewelry?
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
On September 02 2009 12:46 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: I'm happy i lived my teenage years in germany and not in the USA. All you psycho cowboys in this thread would have probably killed me 5 times while I was in some other people's gardens at night playing a prank....
Well if you crush my plants, my only way of obtaining food, then you are threatening my very way of life so yes, you'd be getting shot.
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote: Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger 2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death 3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands 4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him.
if they may be armed why would you even think of confronting them with a gun over a DVD player and some jewelry?
Because I have principle, and if everyone did then this crap wouldn't happen. If I was a father with children to support or if I had a true soul mate I might change this stance but currently I don't see what's so important about living/dying on a day to day basis.
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting.
2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm.
3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants.
4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns.
5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute.
6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal"
You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting.
2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm.
3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants.
4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns.
5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute.
6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal"
You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this. 2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill. 3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed. 4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe. 5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement. 6) Thanks for getting something right for once.
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting.
2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm.
3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants.
4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns.
5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute.
6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal"
You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this. 2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill. 3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed. 4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe. 5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement. 6) Thanks for getting something right for once.
Look, all I know, is you're trying to take things that my loved ones love, and I don't respect that. Mainly the bit where you would want my gf to throw away her lifes training just so you would feel a bit safer at night. This just saddens me a lot....
My dad uses his guns only for hunting and practice for hunting. My father is not a cold blooded murderer, hes an honest hard-working man that likes to hunt every now and then.
Also your argument about legality of guns, the bad guys will get them no matter what, and only the good people (like my dad and gf for example) will suffer.
"as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp."
Her's does.
Please don't start to get rude, I have no problems debating with you, but I'd like this to not turn into a flame fest.
Also, penn says it best
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws, thats insane"
He wasn't being rude, what are you talking about :/
PanN is being rude, and being passive aggressive, so he's also projecting.
Yes of course you can practice bladed martial arts with blunted/padded/not-for-killing weapons... you're rarely supposed to practice with the real weapons at all, unless her goal is specifically to improve at killing people with a large bladed weapon. (You said she uses her training for stress relief.)
No, you can't hunt large mammals without a murder-capable weapon, though there are alternatives to a hunting (~sniper) rifle. If society decides to restrict such weapons, your father must accept the restrictions or depart. That's what it means to exist in a society.
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting.
2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm.
3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants.
4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns.
5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute.
6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal"
You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this. 2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill. 3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed. 4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe. 5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement. 6) Thanks for getting something right for once.
Look, all I know, is you're trying to take things that my loved ones love, and I don't respect that. Mainly the bit where you would want my gf to throw away her lifes training just so you would feel a bit safer at night. This just saddens me a lot....
My dad uses his guns only for hunting and practice for hunting. My father is not a cold blooded murderer, hes an honest hard-working man that likes to hunt every now and then.
Also your argument about legality of guns, the bad guys will get them no matter what, and only the good people (like my dad and gf for example) will suffer.
"as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp."
Her's does.
Please don't start to get rude, I have no problems debating with you, but I'd like this to not turn into a flame fest.
Also, penn says it best
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws, thats insane"
Except you keep giving priori arguments about the personality of your dad and your girlfriend being "good" persons that would "never do such a thing". Now you are claiming that somehow they would be victimized if such laws passed (and somehow I am to blame, too). It's hard to not flame at such ignorance.
Anyways, either you trolled me really well, or it is really impossible for us to debate intelligently.
On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote: well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right!
So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them?
IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
No wonder Santa never drops by my house these days.
I agree with minimum force necessary. That means if you are able, physically overcome them and keep them in custody. No real need to remove them from the face of the earth just because they stepped into your house with the intent of robbing you.
Everyone has a different "minimum" depending on the situation, are you saying you cannot overcome a man with a knife desperate for money?
You only live once. Make sure it counts. I don't know about some other people here, but I would prefer not be in the AP news as another death statistics.
There has been some sick execution style around here. NOT ALL of them make the news. It is easy to judge when you're living in your safe little haven. I know enough people that has someone they know or witness a murder. It's more than anyone should ever have to know.
Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life? Property [ ] Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary: Bare hands [ ] Improvised weapon [ ] Knife [ ] Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Thank you for your time!Last edit: 2009-09-01 19:51:47
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote: In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
This just shows your ignorance. You're trying to shove an idealistic view infront of everyone's faces without knowing reality. Look at gun confiscation lists from criminals. The overwhelming majority of guns confiscated are .22's and .380's. Now to break that down for a gun fearing individual such as yourself that means they're realistic low end of guns. They're often pocket pistols and small framed guns in general, so fighting fire with fire...well they're gonna lose.
You guys are just so out of touch with reality, why is it that states and local areas that institute conceal carry permit programs have crime go DOWN? Why is it that criminals interviewed admit that they're more fearful and less likely to commit crimes in areas they know there is a real probability of that person being armed? 2,000,000 homes are burglarized a year and with some rough ass math saying half the population(150,000,00 people) all have a household, so you get about a 1.5% chance of being robbed every year.
There was a case recently that got no main stream media attention, but long story short in Knoxville, TN a guy and a girl got car jacked, but they ended up actually getting raped and then murdered, really gross story. My point is that with anything many criminals are completely ok with the fact of having to harm or kill someone to get their job done that's just one reason they carry guns.
I also already explained that the good guys are law abiding citizens, we follow the laws to get our weapons, we do what we're supposed to do. The only thing passing gun laws does is harm the people who follow the laws. Criminals can't be stopped by something on paper. Remember Washington D.C.? Despite the fact no one could defend themselves, there were a lot of gun crimes, in fact its a fairly violent area...but how! They couldn't own guns...simply because criminals can always get weapons. Its just reality, sure in an ideal world we all live peacefully, sipping on lemonade, but too many things realistically show that that just can't be the case in this day in age. Remember laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals can still get away with things.
Its the thinking in general, the 17 year old girl recently who got forced into the car and then later killed. This doesn't deal with so much guns as it does the fact that you have to be have some preparedness for situations, because unfortunately for that young girl, it only took that one time and she's gone because she didn't know what to do in that situation and didn't know to just run no matter what. Even in England, you take away the guns...and stabbings a gogo. Criminals are criminals are criminals and that's the way it is.
Alizee- Please ignore all facts about gun control laws and their effects. I'm sure they are all fabricated by rich gun manufacturers and so we should accept the theories presented in this forum instead.
If someone breaks into your home and you have to use a lot of force to bring them down, then make sure you kill them and make sure the body stays in your home until the cops arrive. If the criminal is carrying a weapon and his body is lying on the floor of your home, you can argue self-defense and get off scott-free. If you wound him and he escapes alive, he can sue you and rob you "legally."
Ok, let's think in general. America has a higher death per capita rate due to guns than most countries. Coincidentally, its gun ownership laws are more relaxed than most countries.
Despite what you may say, I am glad I live in a country where the average standard citizen will never touch a gun in their life.
Then you might say, America is not a Utopia, we need guns there in order to protect ourselves. Maybe. If magicaly one day there was the option for all of American private firearms (except for military/police weaponry) to disappear into thin air, as well as gun restriction laws being introduced in order to prevent a resurgence in ownership of firearms, would you take this option?
If you reject it, I can only assume one of two things:
a) you still believe one should carry guns in order to protect themselves by 'one-upping' people with melee weapons such as machetes. Ultimately, this increases crime rate by the common citizen being able to carry guns. Not a good outcome.
b) you believe it is a core principle of the United States that one has the right to "bear arms". In this case, your priorities are obvious. You believe that people's right to carry weaponry comes before the overall safety of society. It is ironic that you would then be a proponent of private gun ownership for the sake of societal safety (ie. people in general can protect themselves using guns).
The support of guns in America has always seemed to me as part of the 'me first' attitude to life. In general I see that this is a bit more expressed in Americans, with regards to other things like your health care system. That isn't to say it's just the United States that exhibits this behaviour. Global warming in particular has lately exposed this mentality in a lot of other countries.
On September 02 2009 20:24 nebffa wrote: Ok, let's think in general. America has a higher death per capita rate due to guns than most countries. Coincidentally, its gun ownership laws are more relaxed than most countries.
Despite what you may say, I am glad I live in a country where the average standard citizen will never touch a gun in their life.
Then you might say, America is not a Utopia, we need guns there in order to protect ourselves. Maybe. If magicaly one day there was the option for all of American private firearms (except for military/police weaponry) to disappear into thin air, as well as gun restriction laws being introduced in order to prevent a resurgence in ownership of firearms, would you take this option?
If you reject it, I can only assume one of two things:
a) you still believe one should carry guns in order to protect themselves by 'one-upping' people with melee weapons such as machetes. Ultimately, this increases crime rate by the common citizen being able to carry guns. Not a good outcome.
b) you believe it is a core principle of the United States that one has the right to "bear arms". In this case, your priorities are obvious. You believe that people's right to carry weaponry comes before the overall safety of society. It is ironic that you would then be a proponent of private gun ownership for the sake of societal safety (ie. people in general can protect themselves using guns).
The support of guns in America has always seemed to me as part of the 'me first' attitude to life. In general I see that this is a bit more expressed in Americans, with regards to other things like your health care system. That isn't to say it's just the United States that exhibits this behaviour. Global warming in particular has lately exposed this mentality in a lot of other countries.
It is not a "me first" attitude. It is an "I know whats best for me" attitude as opposed to your "I know whats best for YOU" attitude.
On September 02 2009 20:24 nebffa wrote: Ok, let's think in general. America has a higher death per capita rate due to guns than most countries. Coincidentally, its gun ownership laws are more relaxed than most countries.
Despite what you may say, I am glad I live in a country where the average standard citizen will never touch a gun in their life.
Then you might say, America is not a Utopia, we need guns there in order to protect ourselves. Maybe. If magicaly one day there was the option for all of American private firearms (except for military/police weaponry) to disappear into thin air, as well as gun restriction laws being introduced in order to prevent a resurgence in ownership of firearms, would you take this option?
If you reject it, I can only assume one of two things:
a) you still believe one should carry guns in order to protect themselves by 'one-upping' people with melee weapons such as machetes. Ultimately, this increases crime rate by the common citizen being able to carry guns. Not a good outcome.
b) you believe it is a core principle of the United States that one has the right to "bear arms". In this case, your priorities are obvious. You believe that people's right to carry weaponry comes before the overall safety of society. It is ironic that you would then be a proponent of private gun ownership for the sake of societal safety (ie. people in general can protect themselves using guns).
The support of guns in America has always seemed to me as part of the 'me first' attitude to life. In general I see that this is a bit more expressed in Americans, with regards to other things like your health care system. That isn't to say it's just the United States that exhibits this behaviour. Global warming in particular has lately exposed this mentality in a lot of other countries.
This is close to what i think.
I think it's hard for people in other countries that don't have the high crimerate and gun policy of USA to understand the points of view expressed in this thread. Personally i think guns being illegal is the better way to go (Seriously, look at the statistics from other countries). However, this is too late for USA. Outlawing firearms now that everyone has one would, as stated before only make the law biding citizens unarmed vs the armed robbers.
Also: the argument that robbers will always get their hands on weapons even if they are illegal is not true, i think when house owners escalate things by getting gun they force robbers to get them as well and vice versa...
On September 03 2009 03:53 Slaughter wrote: I wonder what % of americans actually like/want/own guns. I think its probably a lower number then many outside the US like to think it is.
I'd say its somewhere around 50%, just a guess though.
That seems way high to me -.- maybe just because the only people I know with guns is my grand father who has a shotgun and 22 pistol that he got from his father and is like 70 years old that he keeps somewhere deep in storage.
On September 03 2009 04:01 Slaughter wrote: That seems way high to me -.- maybe just because the only people I know with guns is my grand father who has a shotgun and 22 pistol that he got from his father and is like 70 years old that he keeps somewhere deep in storage.
Edit: I found some place that said about 27-30%
When you say like/want are you referring to people who literally owns guns as a hobby or whatever reason, or do you mean people who like/want guns in our society?
I say that to people who like to hunt or sport shooting. I think the % of people who are for the right for people to own guns is higher just because they have some idea that people shouldn't be deprived of something even if they personally don't own or like guns.
On September 03 2009 03:53 Slaughter wrote: I wonder what % of americans actually like/want/own guns. I think its probably a lower number then many outside the US like to think it is.
40 million Americans own 200 million guns. However, one thing to keep in mind is that different states have different setups. Missouri, again where I'm from, we don't have to register them nor do any paper work to transfer them. So say I have a gun of my dad's well does that actually mean we both own it? Perhaps, but what I'm getting at is that the number should be higher, but its a bit hard to calculate. Still though using that logic, a gun owner would be listed as the person who owns it, not his kids/wife for example. So in a house hold of 4, well if the one guy was the only technical owner you'd have a high percentage of families owning them making that 50% maybe not accurate, but not way out of the ball park either.
States like California where its like law-for-everything central would probably be more accurate in knowing the number of guns at least in their state, but yeah states like mine its wayyyyy harder. Plus you have antique guns and just all sorts of things.
On September 02 2009 21:06 ViruX wrote: I am surprised that so many Americans want guns, I thought the vast majority of America was christian.
loooooooool
At least here in Oklahoma, the proud belt buckle of the American Bible Belt, in a 95% Christian town, these are the most violent racist gun loving douchefucks I've ever seen. This has nothing to do with religion.
At least the Bible Belt is home to most of the crazy religious people while the rest of the country is at a normal level. You see the crazies tend to congregate heavily in certain areas of the country
Lmfao at all of the people that say you need to be trained to use a gun, no, no you don't. I've shot about 20 different guns with my people in the south of this city , and they can shoot anything without practice, so can I..
My dad was also in the army and I got a pic of him with a m20 I think it was, he says its not as hard as you idiots who've never shot guns think it is. You don't need any fucking training, just load, shoot, good bye to all your worry's.
On September 03 2009 06:13 Clasic wrote: Lmfao at all of the people that say you need to be trained to use a gun, no, no you don't. I've shot about 20 different guns with my people in the south of this city , and they can shoot anything without practice, so can I..
My dad was also in the army and I got a pic of him with a m20 I think it was, he says its not as hard as you idiots who've never shot guns think it is. You don't need any fucking training, just load, shoot, good bye to all your worry's.
I was thinking this.. but I've only shot two small handguns before so I don't really feel like I know what firing weapons of different types is like, so I didn't talk ;]
I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here) The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it.
On September 03 2009 22:21 Jonoman92 wrote: I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here) The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it.
How could you live in the US and want to ban guns? Don't you know your history??
On September 03 2009 22:21 Jonoman92 wrote: I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here) The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it.
honestly the reason guns will never be banned has less to do with the reasons you listed, and alot more to do with the fact that the sale of firearms is a billion dollar business. People hate it when you try to fuck with there cash.
Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977; however, this law was subsequently overturned in March 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[35] The ruling was upheld in June 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller. Both courts held that the city's handgun ban violated individuals' Second Amendment right to gun ownership.[36] However, the ruling does not prohibit all forms of gun control; laws requiring firearm registration remain in place, as does the city's assault weapon ban.[37] Additionally, city laws still prohibit carrying guns, both openly and concealed.[38]
Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective. However, a significant portion of firearms used in crime are either obtained on the second-hand market or in neighboring states.[39][40] Results from the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative indicate that the percentage of imported guns involved in crimes is tied to the stringency of local firearm laws.[39]
Washington, D.C., has tried a number of other strategies to deal with gun violence. In 1995, the Metropolitan Police Department conducted Operation Ceasefire, a gun-violence crackdown initiative involving intense gun law enforcement, in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office.[41] This initiative resulted in seizure of 282 firearms in its first four months, mainly 9mm, 380ACP, and .25ACP pistols, and .38 caliber revolvers, most of which were purchased in Maryland and Virginia.[42]
Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.
Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states.[
Ah, who am I kidding, people won't actually read the facts.
Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time.
Washington D.C is just a small 60 square mile block of land so even if it does put a gun restriction into place it obviously won't have a huge effect since someone can drive 30 minutes to bring in guns for their gang or w/e from a neighboring state. America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I don't think your examples are that valid for this reason since the current system admittedly is bad and can't work if it's done a state by state basis.
On September 03 2009 22:21 Jonoman92 wrote: I think most people can agree that it is almost a fact that banning guns long-term would result in fewer murders since guns result in fatality so much more often than other forms of violence and the fact that many violent interactions would not occur in the first place without guns. (When someone shoots at you and you have a gun you might shoot back. But if they have a knife and you do too you'd probably not be inclined to get in a knife fight.)
(Talking about the US here) The problem is the interim period where the law-abiding citizens give up their guns, but the criminals don't. Then you have people who complain, somewhat rightfully imo, that they can't defend their homes and families and even though it might be safer long-term, short-term the bad guys have a big leg-up on normal citizens (yes, yes, I know it's rare but when a single family is held at gun-point and robbed the media would eat it up and public opinion would want their guns back). Also, I bet this would result in black marketing of guns and stuff but guns seems like they'd be harder to smuggle than drugs so that shouldn't be a huge problem. The biggest problem is no politician, except in a really liberal state, could ever push for a gun ban, or even increased restrictions because so many people are against it.
honestly the reason guns will never be banned has less to do with the reasons you listed, and alot more to do with the fact that the sale of firearms is a billion dollar business. People hate it when you try to fuck with there cash.
IMO, the reason why gun reform hasn't been implemented is neither of the above. It's that there are way too many people who think it is their right to have the gun (republicans.. country hicks..). Basically, one will lose a lot of political capital by trying to tone down guns.
But why the hell don't we ban everything except pistols/rifles... Anything else is unnecessary for self-defense/hunting. Best would be if only rifles were allowed. You can't hide them, so they can be basically used for hunting and self-defense but hard to use aggressively.
On September 04 2009 04:12 Slaughter wrote: That reminds me of the southpark where the birtish were sailing to invade the US in a fleet of old school wooden warships rofl.
On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote: America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself.
By having a gun, you make it much more likely you will get hurt/killed, because the burglar/attacker will be threatened. You also massively increase the chance of killing someone for stealing property, which is appalling. In return, in the incredible unlikelihood of a serial killer coming to your house, you get a small chance of fighting them off, bearing in mind that they're a killer and you're just an idiot with a gun, so you have no guarantee of even stopping them.
Added to this the chance of a family member accidentally firing the gun during 'peacetime', and the kind of mindset you put yourself into, it just seems fucking stupid.
A serial killer is not going to come to your house. If preserving your life at any cost is your goal, then stopping driving/smoking/drinking/walking in the rain/living in a city/swimming/cycling/horse riding would all give you much better odds than having a gun. A gun makes it more likely you will be killed.
On September 04 2009 19:10 Tal wrote: I don't understand the pro-gun argument at all.
By having a gun, you make it much more likely you will get hurt/killed, because the burglar/attacker will be threatened. You also massively increase the chance of killing someone for stealing property, which is appalling. In return, in the incredible unlikelihood of a serial killer coming to your house, you get a small chance of fighting them off, bearing in mind that they're a killer and you're just an idiot with a gun, so you have no guarantee of even stopping them.
Added to this the chance of a family member accidentally firing the gun during 'peacetime', and the kind of mindset you put yourself into, it just seems fucking stupid.
A serial killer is not going to come to your house. If preserving your life at any cost is your goal, then stopping driving/smoking/drinking/walking in the rain/living in a city/swimming/cycling/horse riding would all give you much better odds than having a gun. A gun makes it more likely you will be killed.
Your lack of understanding of the pro-gun argument probably has a lot to do with your perception of an armed homeowner as an "idiot with a gun." I understand that you're from the UK and guns are a rare sight, so if the average citizen in your country had a gun they would probably be just an "idiot with a gun" since they've never used one. The average homeowner with a gun probably has more experience firing it than a thug that just brandishes it. A lot of people don't understand the argument of sitting in your house and "hoping" that you don't get assaulted. "Hoping" that they just take your personal belongings and leave. You're probably in the minority here if you'd rather have someone steal your stuff and get away than having them get hurt or killed.
On September 04 2009 05:25 Slaughter wrote: Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time.
Fact1: Crime goes up where guns are prohibited or extremely restricted. Fact2: Crime goes down when right to carry laws are loosened. The liberal conclusion: Ban guns everywhere.
Also a side note, most criminals already obtain their guns illegally, making them illegal for everyone wont stop them.
On September 02 2009 03:48 Forgottenfrog wrote: My dad and two nephews were home when we got robbed. My nephews were 4 and 5 at the time and my dad is in his 60's [sad that i dont know my dad's age]. There were 3 guys with guns who repeatedly beat my dad with their guns and tied all 3 of them up. My dad is a war veteran so he fought back which caused the beating. It was a good thing he fought back because they took awhile to tie my dad up, they left without taking much. Now we have cameras around and inside our house. I live in Hawthorne, CA.
How is risking your health/life for material gain ever a good thing?
What kind of coward, defeatist attitude is that though? That is sort of accepting the criminals doing what they want and just roll over. It's obviously not just about loosing some things but to be brutalized and have someone enter your home and do what the hell they want. It's not okay for obvious reasons.
The self-protection laws in Sweden are the worst ever btw. The guy protecting himself will many times be sued by the criminal who commited the crime in the first place and chances are that the victim of the original crime ends up getting fucked over due to the fact that he defended himself "too much". C'mon, he's not the one doing the original crime and he just reacted in a very normal way.
While people getting shot obviously isn't a good thing, nobody should tell you that you can't defend yourself, your family or property if necessary.
Yeah, self-defence laws are pretty lame here in Sweden. We should be allowed to kill/beat up any intruders on our property and not get sued for trying to defend our property/selves.
My life is all I've got. If I felt that I needed to have a nuke in my basement to protect my life, I'd do it.
Humanity is crazy. If you don't like guns, I feel you! I don't like them, or violence, or poverty or sickness or suffering (...I don't think I do...). But nothing will keep you safe but yourself -- and sadly that might not be enough!
What can you do then? BECOME AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE!
On September 04 2009 05:25 Slaughter wrote: Yea you know your whole argument goes up in smoke because all attempts to restrict guns are only in limited areas and does not apply to an attempt to do it nationwide at the same time.
Fact1: Crime goes up where guns are prohibited or extremely restricted. Fact2: Crime goes down when right to carry laws are loosened. The liberal conclusion: Ban guns everywhere.
Also a side note, most criminals already obtain their guns illegally, making them illegal for everyone wont stop them.
Its sad knowing this, but people will refute it. Regardless America will never get rid of our guns, even if you take out the ability to carry concealed or open carry, guns in the home cannot and will not go away so long as the 2nd amendment exists. The founding fathers believed in the ability to take back the government should it no longer server the best interests of the people. Is it realistic with a modern day military? Likely not, but its not going to deny peoples' right to owning guns.
Secondly as far as defending yourself, Thurgood Marshall said it himself,"You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." Its your life, are you gonna risk death because you're afraid of a law suit? I understand other countries are set up differently, but the laws of man are superseded by your right to live. I know that's an opinion, but really what basis does any law have if you're not even alive?
By the way I have a Londoner friend who is very much afraid of the violence, yet they have no guns. Violence doesn't come packaged with a certain type of weapon, only a certain type of intent and mindset.
I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
On September 05 2009 01:17 Cloud wrote: I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
Do you have any studies, statistics, or anything to back this up? It appears that the criminals down in Mexico are doing quite a bit of kidnappings, killings, and other violent crimes. A would you rather, doesn't mean anything unless those "I would rather" change the 2nd Amendment.
Anyways, as I said earlier the facts will be there in the face of this nonsense and people won't bother to read them, or that they will duck their head in the sand and say nah-huh! FBI statistics are pretty irrefutable wouldn't you say?
"that force must be the minimum amount necessary" This should mean that you should only harm the intruder if there is present danger for your safety. You can shoot down a bunch of armed guys. But you cannot shoot some unarmed kid that is stealing your new TV.
In the US though, this law is often interpreted in a different way... My English class teacher had a friend who was civil engineer. He was assigned some job at an oil raffinery somewhere in Texas. He could not find the way so he went to a ranch he passed by and knocked on the door. Well, the redneck living there just shot him through the door with a shotgun and killed him instantly... That guy was not sentenced because, the other entered his property unauthorized... That's a working justice system...
@ Aegraen
Well, Mexico is a pretty nasty place right now... However, in the US it is a different situation. As for FBI statistics, did you know that less than 2% of murders involving firearms in the US happen actually because of self-defence. Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence? I will try to find the source i am refering to here. It's been a while since I read this.
On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote: America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself.
Well it seems dumb to me that stuff like the tax on gas varies from state to state. Where I live everyone crosses into Missouri to buy gas because the tax is less so the stations sell it cheaper. I think New York/New Jersey have this same type of thing going on. The same thing came up with same sex marriage where the national gov. just didn't want to deal with it so they decided to leave it up to the states to decide. You're right that some things are best handled on a state level, but serious matters like the penalty for crime can vary significantly from state to state and that doesn't make sense to me.
I guess my thing is I feel as though wherever you are in America you should be living under the same rules/laws and that's not the way it is.
I'm not really well informed about this topic, but I lean away from gun restriction. If I had an actual house (living in apartment right now) I would want to be able to stop a violent person/people from walking all over me. In many places in the world it's a necessary thing to have (I come from the Balkans).
Also, didn't the rate of knife-use/stabbing go way up in Britain after they restricted guns?
On September 04 2009 05:32 Jonoman92 wrote: America is dumb imo for having things vary so much from states to state, decision should be made on a national level for reasons of simplicity (it's pretty tough to know all the differences in state laws) and for efficacy because if one state invokes gun restrictions but the ones around it don't then it isn't going to work.
I think your blanket statement is unfair and uninformed. You can disagree about which issues you think should be handled on a national, state, or local level, but don't just decide that they all should be controlled by the federal government.... or if you really believe that then you have a much larger job of justifying yourself.
Well it seems dumb to me that stuff like the tax on gas varies from state to state. Where I live everyone crosses into Missouri to buy gas because the tax is less so the stations sell it cheaper. I think New York/New Jersey have this same type of thing going on. The same thing came up with same sex marriage where the national gov. just didn't want to deal with it so they decided to leave it up to the states to decide. You're right that some things are best handled on a state level, but serious matters like the penalty for crime can vary significantly from state to state and that doesn't make sense to me.
I guess my thing is I feel as though wherever you are in America you should be living under the same rules/laws and that's not the way it is.
Why is it dumb that they vary from state to state? The values of one state may vary greatly from the values of another; if you dont like the laws of your state, you move or you vote someone else into office. The federal government is not some noble entity, and it is no more capable of handling "serious" issues than a State government. The only difference is your vote matters more at the state level.
Can we have a crazy gun thread where we show off our firearms and have the more liberal minded call us neanderthals? I can take some pics, just have to get stuff out of the walk in safe first.
On September 05 2009 02:23 ggrrg wrote: Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence?
People will say that's an argument for locking guns up, not for banning them. The frequency of deaths from traffic accidents is an argument for seatbelts, not for doing away with motor traffic.
If what you are saying is correct (and it sure could be) the main problem with guns is accidents. 4-wheelers are dumb as shit, people get killed on those all the time, but they are not banned. I think it's great that guns don't need to be used too often in self defense. Now we need to have people be more careful with them.
Guns are such a cultural rift. I understand where both sides are coming from, so I don't see the rift doing anything but widening.
Well, Mexico is a pretty nasty place right now... However, in the US it is a different situation. As for FBI statistics, did you know that less than 2% of murders involving firearms in the US happen actually because of self-defence. Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence? I will try to find the source i am refering to here. It's been a while since I read this.
This is providing bias by not showing the full picture because what you're not including is that 100s of thousands of potential incidents get deterred by more or less brandishing a weapon i.e. "back off, bozos!"
On September 05 2009 02:39 ShaperofDreams wrote: I'm not really well informed about this topic, but I lean away from gun restriction. If I had an actual house (living in apartment right now) I would want to be able to stop a violent person/people from walking all over me. In many places in the world it's a necessary thing to have (I come from the Balkans).
Also, didn't the rate of knife-use/stabbing go way up in Britain after they restricted guns?
I know that there was a case here in Ohio where a guy woke up to a noise downstairs, he drew his shot gun and loaded up a few buck shots. He started going downstairs when the intruder stepped up to the staircase, the house owner told him to stop and get out but the guy just threatened the owner and took another step at which point the owner lowered his shottie and blasted the guy in the face. He said he was aiming for the chest but because he had the gun at his waist it shot up more, decapitating the man completely. When the police arrived he was questioned and not even arrested, there seemed to be a second guy as well who ran away when he heard the gun shot.
There was another case where a man woke up to get his baby a bottle when he noticed a mans hand in the door window trying to pry it open. He was completely naked and did not have any weapons in the house, the intruders made him get on his knees while they tied his wife up(who was sleeping on the couch). 1 guy watched the owner and another watched his wife while the other 2 went searching through his house. They left with some fake jewelry and left them unharmed, during this the baby was crying the whole time. The owner later said that the day after the incident he went and got a gun, he sleeps with it in his nightstand every night loaded and ready to shoot. During the day it is kept in a case and has a trigger guard on it so his other daughter can not access it.
If you look for specific examples you'll find cases that support any stance on the issue. There have been many cases where private gun ownership has saved the day, and many cases where the exact opposite has occurred.
See how random people are almost accustomed to live under this mess. Theres even a horse running in the first video wtf lol
on a sidenote, in Brazil we dont have the gun laws that the US has, and altho theres still a lots of guns around, theres a consensus that self defense overall = retarded.
That said, most of the time, thiefs and robbers are more inclined into being peacefull, and sometimes annoying in the sense that they socialize with you while robbing you.
On September 01 2009 19:50 BlackJack wrote: I doubt anyone here will immediately open fire on an intruder without giving them some warning to flee. Why would you want to kill somebody in your house? The blood goes everywhere, underneath carpet / tile. You'd have to rip up your floor if you want to clean it completely. Everytime you walk past that area in your house you will not be able to think of anything else but the time you killed a guy and he bled out on your floor and emptied his bowels while choking on his own blood and vomit. Then what do you do as he is wallowing in a pool of his own blood, spraying it all over your furniture and walls, gargling for mercy? Obviously you'd have to shoot him again or risk replacing your sofa and repainting your walls which probably costs more to replace than anything he could have ran off with.
I feel very much reassured that there is virtually no chance of someone breaking into my home here with a gun. With that in mind I'd assess the situation and if it was just one guy I'd probably attack them if they were robbing me, surprising them if possible. You gotta give a warning etc if you're armed and capable of killing them but it's much harder to mistakenly kill someone with your hands. Also it is my belief that robbers don't want to become murderers because the jail sentences are longer, the police more committed and the profit lower. Unless they're afraid you'll be heavily armed they are unlikely to be heavily armed themselves. If I assessed the situation and felt I couldn't prevent them from robbing me (ie 3 guys) then I'd call the police and hide.
Ultimately many can overpower a person and force them to do things against their will, such as losing property. This sucks but it's a reality of life. If you bring knives into the equation many still overpower the few, they just all have knives. Same with guns. It sucks but there really is no advantage from weapon ownership unless the robbers allow you to have that advantage. Obv you can't just undo gun ownership in America but I feel much safer living in a society without them.
On September 05 2009 01:17 Cloud wrote: I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
Do you have any studies, statistics, or anything to back this up? It appears that the criminals down in Mexico are doing quite a bit of kidnappings, killings, and other violent crimes. A would you rather, doesn't mean anything unless those "I would rather" change the 2nd Amendment.
Anyways, as I said earlier the facts will be there in the face of this nonsense and people won't bother to read them, or that they will duck their head in the sand and say nah-huh! FBI statistics are pretty irrefutable wouldn't you say?
Yeah there a lot of kidnapping in mexico, killings mostly in the north which are where the drug problems are, anyway i dont think we should legalize guns in mexico, it wouldnt help in any way.
Kidnaps never happen in your home, its always in a car, many times done by the police so a gun at home wont help anyone, and if its about carrying a concealed weapon, that can help to deter crime however there would be an insane amounts of random killings in bars and club by drunken retards.
I believe the quote is: "When seconds count the police are only minutes away." I will never subscribe to the idea that I'll just call the cops, hide, and hope for the best. Americans as a whole don't think like that either thankfully.
Here's a quote from a forum related to firearms and its brilliant:
" Quote: Yemen, I think, and some other Middle Eastern countries pretty much have an "anything goes" policy - full autos, etc. Actually Yemen ceased having that freedom in 2007 under pressure from Europe and the US antis to impose stricter small arms controls. They spun it as a local thing, but it was primarily a result of foreign pressure to eliminate the freedom. Thier per capita murder rate was lower than the US.
Since then they have outlawed most of it, but since its such a strong part of the culture virtually everyone outside the main city ignores it and carries as before. It could be a important change even for Americans as Yemen was once a main location to register vessels for tax purposes and various liberties that went with the flag. So if thier laws are worse, and you are sailing under thier flag, it could effect your freedoms at sea.
Many other nations that in reality have almost anything goes do not officially allow that. For example you can find plenty of videos of tourists firing machineguns, RPGs, and tossing grenades in Cambodia online. But that is not legal according to thier government.
There is many portions of the world where what is done, cultural expected or allowed, and what is officially legal according to the capitol many miles away are completely different. Almost everyone has an AK in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that is not legal under Pakistani law.
Governments like control, the only real power governments have to fall back on if necessary to preserve thier authority is use of force. That is not as easy or effective against an armed population. So governments around the world seek to disarm everyone except thier own military and LEO forces. This had been the case for thousands of years. It is still the case today. The only time governments want thier average citizens to be armed historically is when the threat of losing thier authority to foreign invaders is greater than the risk from thier own population. Such as England facing the potential Nazi invasion. As soon as that threat is over they want thier subjects to pose as minimal a force as possible. That is why the UN, represented by most national governments in the world can completely agree that reduction of small arms held by citizens across the globe is a strong priority. Regardless of thier disagreements with each other, they all want thier subjects easier to efficiently manage. It is easy to rule millions with tens of thousands if only the tens of thousands have effective arms. Or rule hundreds of millions with only hundreds of thousands. That is why gun control is always at its heart about control. They may exploit crying mothers and what is thought of as the stereotypical anti to achieve that objective, but it is an objective of governments globally.
That said many governments have no problem with thier citizens having some minor arms that would never be effective against the armed men employed by the government. They primarily want the citizens disarmed of effective fighting arms that could be used to resist thier will or authority, not all guns in general. Brazil's laws exemplify this example. They prohibit almost anything that can defeat body armor, including virtually all rifle rounds. But they have little to no problems with people having handguns, or carbines in handgun calibers. No problem with serfs having arms to kill other serfs, as long as they can not legally have arms that pose a threat to the "king's men", or today's version the government's forces. It's not about crime, it's about control. Many governments don't care if thier citizens have shotguns, and are limited to ammunition that poses no threat to body armored LEO or armored transports. They have processes and permits and red tape, but they will allow those things, not because they are less deadly, but because they are easy for the government to still crush with force if necessary. Very few governments though will let thier serfs possess effective modern arms on par with thier own forces. Like the most modern centerfire rifles, or other armaments that pose similar risks to thier troops.
Which of course was the whole original point of the 2nd Amendment in the USA when the founders wrote it. So every locality and every state was a threat to eachother and to the federal government. So everyone was resistant to tyranny from eachother. So the body of the people was always a greater threat than a force which could be raised and used against it. The very opposite of what almost every government wants today, and has wanted since recorded history: absolute centralized power and authority with minimal potential resistance or threats."
The thing is, in Brazil you talk about how its practically a war zone. Without dissecting it though I'll pose simple questions to you: are the police doing their job? are the police corruption free(Within reason)? How much of the population is armed?
Here in America most gun related crimes other than perhaps intercity gang related activities tend to be in gun free zones. I'd have to look more into Brazil, but it sounds at the very least like you're in a situation like America where you don't just have all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and problem solved.
Lastly, for D10, wicked people don't start doing good just because of laws changing. A rock, a stone, a knife, a bat, a sword, a gun, they're all tools and can be used for evil, its the person that is the problem, not the tool.
Of course Alizee, but I still think that guns suck, we dont need power thro guns, what we need is a free speech society with decent democracy.
Our police is corrupt is innefective yes, but the problem is deeper, and if for some magical reason gunpowder stopped working tomorrow it would still exist.
On the subject of the Government wanting people unarmed so it can control them.
The United States military is not going to be defeated by small arms. If you want to maintain the spirit of the 2nd amendment then you've got to legalise everything, from tanks to nukes. When a citizens militia can pool their resources and buy aircraft then maybe they can overthrow a tyrannical government. At the time it allowed for personal ownership of the most advanced military technology, the fact that it doesn't specify tanks or jets doesn't change the fact that they should be legal in private ownership in the spirit of it. You're not gonna round up a posse and take on the military with your handguns, attempting it would be darwinism in action. Politicians aren't afraid you're going to shoot the police when they come for you after declaring the police state, they're afraid you're going to shoot someone while committing a robbery or shoot your kids then yourself or just leave it where your kids can find it.
On the criminals being able to defy gun control.
In a nation full of guns where guns are readily available and the black market for them is well supplied then yes, gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from being able to have them. Thus your third world examples like Pakistan. In first world countries it's a different situation. Saying it doesn't work in Pakistan therefore it doesn't work completely ignores the fact that it does work in proper countries, such as my own.
Parliamentary figures on gun fatalities for 2005: 185 deaths, including accident, homicide, suicide and undetermined intent.
185 in a population 1/5 of yours, so round that up to a 1000 for the entire United States. That's pretty low.
Also, and I think more important are the figures for police casualties to firearms. Sucks when they get shot doing their duty. Between 1997 and 2003 (the period I found stats on) there were a total of 56 firearms incidents including 0 fatalities, 9 serious injuries and 47 slight injuries (including shock).
This isn't a Government conspiracy to stop you overthrowing it. You're not going to overthrow the Government no matter how well they arm you. And you'd have to be insane to decide the taxes are too high so you're going to start a revolution and declare war on the state, that's kind of an overreaction. The Government doesn't want you to have a gun for the same reason they don't want North Korea to have a nuke. People say stupid things and do stupid things and if given the power to harm they are likely to harm others or themselves.
In fact, the North Korea analogy actually works very well. Kim Jong Il could argue that the international community has nukes and could threaten him with them and he'd have nothing to defend himself and would therefore lose all freedom, just as an individual might argue he has no freedom without a gun if someone with one wants to rob him. And yet we don't see nuclear extortion, just as we don't see soldiers taking their guns home and robbing local shops. The hypothetical threat of extortion by force is purely theoretical in the case of the international community, just as it is in the case of Government oppression in a mature democracy. While the power to extort and to enforce exists in theory it is coupled with the responsibility and maturity not to. Of course, you could argue even a theoretical limitation on personal freedoms is too much but I believe it to be comparable to arguing the international community should give NK nuclear technology.
If you want an even more compelling argument go read some youtube comments and after each one say "I think that person should be allowed to own weapons".
A strange man just peeked in from my back porch. I heard a noise and turned and saw him and he ran away. I live in an apartment building and it is easy to climb from the communal patio onto my porch. What the fuck, if I had been asleep or in a different room he might have come inside and then who knows what. What the fuck, what the fuck.
It freaked me out. I feel so vulnerable here. I've been mugged on the street before, but that's different. What if this dude was just casing the place and he'll come back with his friends? He was skinny as fuck and had on a coat when it's warm outside so he's probably a drug fiend or something what the fuck.
One area, a guy is going around breaking into military housing homes. Wives/children frequently by themselves. Just breaks in the front door early evening, grabs some stuff and leaves.
One house he broke into, the husband was home, as he kicks in the door, the husband happened to be standing near a butcher block. He pulls out a knife and chucks it, killing the guy B&Eing but in the process, catapulting him outside door slightly. Cops come and tell the Navy guy who ended up killing him to drag his corpse inside the doorway before they started processing the scene.
Moral - Kill them in your house, OK. If they end up outside your house during the act that kills them, then you have trouble, though Cops can and do fuzz details sometimes.
Similar story of an old man who shotgunned a invader half-out a window. The cops had to get the old guy to drag the invader inside by himself.
I believe for the minium force rule, you have to be on even footing, so if hes got a knife, put down yo gun and have an oldschool knife fight, cs style.
if you do use more than minimal force, i think all the mitigating factors (eg: some asshole in your house with a weapon) go in your favor anyways. im gonna try to find a story about a man who caught a robber in his home, tied him to a chair, and whipped him all night. my dad told it to me a long time ago, hope its true. apparently he got anger management and community service hours. ill look for a link after work.
well, this is an absolutely counter intuitive as to the construction of modern weapons. Take a firearm, for example. the modern day firearm is made with the intent of maximum "stopping power" in effort to take the target down as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I think it is silly that some legislation or court ruling tells me that I must seek to do as little damage to the very person that is invading my rights, privacy, well-being, property, and God knows what else, if I do indeed seek to stop them.
what I *hope* the interpretation is along the lines of the post above me. ie if you catch someone otherwise breaking and entering, with a possible intent to harm, incapacitating them, and unlawfully restraining them against their will for interrogation, torture, etc. But even then, I would go light on you if you caught someone in your home.
Just talked to my room mate, we are going to install a light wire fence as a deterrent. I'm also going to cut some 2x4's to block the sliding patio doors from being forced open.
Living in canada I can't just blow someones brains out if they threaten me and have everything forgiven because it was my first shot, I have to use my katana to defend myself. (Not kidding) The chance that I will slash them across the chest and spray the entire room with blood is pretty high and its a tough call what necessary force is. The guy could keep at me with a shallow wound on his chest, but I'm pretty sure if I tried to cut his head off I would be in the wrong. Also, it's doubtful I'd be able to aim for an arm or a leg without exposing myself to retaliation and since I'm not a trained samurai master the chance I would rupture an important organ is very good. Even if I try to use minimum force, chances are it would look so grizzly I would have a tough time in court. The one up side I see to the whole debacle is that someone trying to break in with a gun is way less likely.
I own a gun I'm content with the thought that it will stay in its safe under my bed for the rest of my life and never see the light of day.
But if someone were to enter my house, I'm more comfortable with the inevitable life long cloud of guilt (and possible legal ramifications) that would come from killing someone, than I would be with the life long cloud of guilt if someone were to enter my house and harm my wife and children while I stand by with no possible recourse.
I really don't mind if anything were to happen to me, but I have a family. As long as they're involved, no stranger is entering my house and surviving. Sorry to all the anti-gun people on TL, but I can't agree with you at all.
EPT
I would obviously summon my lvl 100 Pikachu to defend me. I know what you're thinking... and yes I did stop his evolution to Raichu and rigged him with rare candy.![[image loading]](http://blog.dembro.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/16684-axe-backflip-boots-hatchet-photo-spetsnaz.jpg)
