|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism  But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow.
Guess what? In most countries criminals don't loose all of their human rights just because they are criminals. If "an eye for an eye" would be an improvement to your argument I do hope you see the problem within your stance for yourself.
On December 15 2012 05:14 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:08 jinorazi wrote:the world would be a better place without guns, just like if there were nukes and whatnot. i'll feel comfortable some crackhead coming at me with a knife, more hesitant with a gun. however thats in a fairy tale world when compared to USA. to rid of guns in USA only harms law abiding citizens. there is no need to introduce guns in south korea, there is no need to introduce marijuana in korea because that is determined by the culture, USA and Korea are two different cultures that requires two different approach. trying to shove "gun control" ideas to americans will not work, not because of ignorance but because its understood. On December 15 2012 05:01 tomatriedes wrote:
I wonder if the founding fathers would have worded their 2nd amendment somewhat differently if they had foreseen some of the purposes guns are used in the US for today. weapons, swords or guns, were used for crime throughout human history...its not like guns were never used against innocent pre 1800s. you would not feel comfortable with a crackhead coming at you with a knife, who are you trying to fool?
More comfortable than a crackhead with a gun.
|
On December 15 2012 05:24 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:21 Dknight wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:14 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:10 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family.
Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family.
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. If you want to assume someone breaking into your house while you occupy it has no intention of harming you that's your prerogative however naive it may be. In my opinion anyone breaking into my house while I am in it has knowingly forfeited his right to safety and life. So intruding or breaking and entering equals the right to take another man's life? Interesting. Yes, breaking into an occupied home equals the right to take another mans life as stated in self defense acts around the US. The result of self defense/stand your ground laws? States that have them have higher rates of homicide which contributes to an additional 500-700 deaths a year. There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. MURDER is a different than killing.
Self defense with intention to kill rather than intention to protect yourself is extremely sketchy, I will just leave it at that.
|
On December 15 2012 05:20 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:17 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 04:25 L3g3nd_ wrote:
whens the last time you heard of a school shooting outside of the US? i can name 5-6 major school shootings from the US in the last 10 years, but not a single one outside of the US. it isnt a bloody coincidence. If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family. Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family. You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. Maybe we just have smarter criminals  The majority of time, a thief will not want to hurt anyone. This is not because the thief is a nice person, but because they know that if they get caught they do not want to add assault charges to the thieving charges. Guns are difficult to obtain for UK criminals, but not impossible to obtain. They choose not to carry guns (most of the time). I remember a security van being robbed as it collected money from a bingo hall in London (I was across the street). The thieves were armed and shot the armed guards in the van (they did not die). On another occasion, I remember a group robbed many jewellery stores in the home counties before they were eventually caught. The thieves carried bats (not guns) because they knew that they would not be facing armed resistance, and they did not want to add firearms charges to their robbery charges (if they got caught). Lots of goods were stolen, but no on was hurt in any of the robberies. your examples are bad and out of context because you are arguing against owning guns for defense of home with examples of stealing from companies
The context is good. If a criminal expects their targets to be armed then they will arm themselves. If they know their target will not be armed then they will not arm themselves. I have spoken with some dodgy people in the past, and people who burgle houses do not carry weapons because they know that if they are caught with weapons they will face extra charges.
|
On December 15 2012 05:18 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:13 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 04:25 L3g3nd_ wrote:
whens the last time you heard of a school shooting outside of the US? i can name 5-6 major school shootings from the US in the last 10 years, but not a single one outside of the US. it isnt a bloody coincidence. If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family. Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family. You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The primary motive of break ins in to secure goods and other monetary motives, and this is supported by all statistics. I won't bother to look it up since the stats won't change your mind either way. If they wanted to kill you, they had preexisting motives to do so. Stranger crime is much more rare then you believe it to be. Fun facts. People are much more likely to die from an acquaintance, family member or from domestic violence than from a stranger. These rates are much higher if the individual is a woman. I honestly think people with your viewpoint are just too afraid to defend themselves. You'd rather take it up the ass by some criminal instead of doing anything that might hurt the poor criminal who's just trying to survive by robbing, cheating, murdering.
Now that's a wonderful strawman argument. I never made that point, but it's nice of you to try to counter something I didn't say.
I'm arguing with facts and statistics. If you bother reading any of the criminological literature on the topic, you'd know how rare stranger crime is. And how much more likely someone is to die from accidental discharge of firearms, or domestic violence.
I have no trouble with self-defence, and am actually pro-gun ownership. What I dislike is the lack of gun-control regulations, and how easy it is to get in the US.
The US's issues bleeds into Canada, and most gun crimes committed here are from illegally obtained firearms from the US.
But again, keep with your strawman arguments and live in your bubble.
|
On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns.
I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out.
|
On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools.
My house was broken into while my family was sleeping (I was at work).
Regardless of what you think of their intentions, this is such a scary violation of your well-being that "well they might not have guns" isn't even a thing that goes through your mind. Had I been there (and I've had time to think about it), I would have gone after them with no intentions of mercy. While I don't own a gun, I fully intend on purchasing one when I can afford the correct measure to make sure it's safe.
|
On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools.
No it's not. What you are doing by having guns for self-defense is making the criminal move on to another house where the people don't have them. Why rob someone with a gun instead of someone who doesn't have one.
|
On December 15 2012 05:28 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:22 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 04:25 L3g3nd_ wrote:
whens the last time you heard of a school shooting outside of the US? i can name 5-6 major school shootings from the US in the last 10 years, but not a single one outside of the US. it isnt a bloody coincidence. If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family. Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family. You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. And that is why you are more likely to be killed by someone robbing you than us. Not necessarily. Criminals are cowards, usually they won't stand and fight you unless you're a 70 year old man. On the other hand, that is why you are more likely to be robbed than us. We'd rather not live in fear where the criminals win and the good people lose.
Crime(Homocide especially) rates tell a diffrent story, it is you guys who are apparently "losing" to the criminals.
|
On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools.
If the robbery happens when nobody is there, the gun becomes a moot point, doesn't it? I'm not going to be shooting somebody who's in a completely different location.
The fact is, shooting someone who's breaking in strongly suggests they weren't elsewhere when the robbery occurs, which brings us back to "if there's a situation where someone is likely to get hurt, would you rather it be the innocent, or the criminal?"
|
On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 04:25 L3g3nd_ wrote:
whens the last time you heard of a school shooting outside of the US? i can name 5-6 major school shootings from the US in the last 10 years, but not a single one outside of the US. it isnt a bloody coincidence. If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family. Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family. You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. The fuck is it with these arguments? The burglar wants money. He doesn't get money by killing you. http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/suspect-in-violent-break-in-bustedYou can find countless other examples in the news if you actually try. There are people who commit acts of violence upon breaking in, be it rape, assault, or whatever else. If nothing else, if they break in, here in Texas, they know I could own a firearm, at which point my very presence could constitute a potentially violent response, even if I was NOT armed. Thus, if they have the means to visit violence upon me preemptively, I would be surprised if they didn't, just to control the situation. Now, if someone said "your house is going to be robbed in ten minutes" while I was out eating dinner, I'd stay out for a while, and let it happen, call the cops and insurance. That's common sense, keeping my family out of a dangerous situation. However, if the dangerous situation comes to my family I'm going to protect them with any and all means at my disposal. If, somehow, you consider the life of a criminal to be worth more than that of myself, my wife, or my son, there's not even a point in trying to argue with you, because your outlook is utterly incomprehensible.
Of course not. But this is about societal change, not one particular scenario. You are more than in your right to defend yourself within reason. But prevalent attitudes toward guns in US are not actually making you safer, quite the opposite in the long run. Problem is that to get safer society you would need to suffer a period of being less safe. And that is why strict gun control is such a problematic thing in US. You are in local maximum, to get to a global one you first need to reach local minimum. In other first world countries gun ownership for defense is mostly nonsensical as it is more likely that it will cause you harm then help with any defense.
|
I don't know what the effect will be when guns are BANNED through gun control, but I know for sure that killing people will be a lot more difficult. People say guns don't kill people, but yes, it really does. It is just so easy to kill with guns. I would never want a psychopath with a gun. EVER.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html
Read this article about what happened today. Can you go on a massive killing spree like what happened today in Connecticut without a gun? This article proves that it won't.
|
The purpose of a firearm is, with rare exception, to kill human beings. Guns that exist solely for hunting or sport could have various modification to be less viable for criminals, such as small caliber bullets or even plastic pellets (for sport) and small clip size (for hunting). The only credible justification for limited tracking of firearms by law enforcement is that we might need firearms to kill law enforcement.
Guns make it easier for humans to kill humans. I don't know whether that's a good thing or not. I lean towards 'not'.
On December 15 2012 04:49 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:46 ahappystar wrote:On December 15 2012 04:41 Timurid wrote:On December 15 2012 04:39 Piledriver wrote:The only fucking difference being that Alcohol kills the abuser. Guns kill innocents who are not even related to the person owning the gun. You are fucking dense. I don't give a shit if someone drinks himself to death. Its his stupidity. However, I don't want his stupidity affecting me or my family. How hard is it for you to understand? How about people who drink and drive and kill an innocent family on the road? It's illegal to drink and drive, not drink... simple The only use for guns is to harm or kill people, alcohol has other uses imo There's sport shooting, hunting. Your same logic should mean we should get rid of all swords, including those used to train for Fencing, a well-established sport, because swords are intended to kill people.
Fencing swords are not serious weapons. They're more comparable to paintball guns than to actual kill-people blades.
|
On December 15 2012 05:29 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. If the robbery happens when nobody is there, the gun becomes a moot point, doesn't it? I'm not going to be shooting somebody who's in a completely different location. The fact is, shooting someone who's breaking in strongly suggests they weren't elsewhere when the robbery occurs, which brings us back to "if there's a situation where someone is likely to get hurt, would you rather it be the innocent, or the criminal?"
It's not a moot point. You guys are speaking like somebody breaking into your house to steal, also want to kill you, rape your dog and kidnap your cat. That's fucking unlikely to happen, but by having weapons and using them to kill any intruder, you are forcing the robbers to use weapons themselves. Is it that hard to understand ?
|
On December 15 2012 05:29 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. No it's not. What you are doing by having guns for self-defense is making the criminal move on to another house where the people don't have them. Why rob someone with a gun instead of someone who doesn't have one.
Criminals do not burgle random houses. They usually plan the robbery in advance and cannot just move to another house.
Have you ever discussed burglary with anyone who knows anything about it? (Police or crimianl)
|
Less than half of all murders in this country are commited by whites, yet they comprise 72% of the population.
It's a societal issue. Not a gun issue.
|
On December 15 2012 05:28 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:21 Dknight wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:14 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:10 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:
[quote]
You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them.
I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. If you want to assume someone breaking into your house while you occupy it has no intention of harming you that's your prerogative however naive it may be. In my opinion anyone breaking into my house while I am in it has knowingly forfeited his right to safety and life. So intruding or breaking and entering equals the right to take another man's life? Interesting. Yes, breaking into an occupied home equals the right to take another mans life as stated in self defense acts around the US. The result of self defense/stand your ground laws? States that have them have higher rates of homicide which contributes to an additional 500-700 deaths a year. There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. MURDER is a different than killing. Self defense with intention to kill rather than intention to protect yourself is extremely sketchy, I will just leave it at that.
If someone is trying to murder you, killing them is protecting yourself. How is this concept so misunderstood.
|
On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:26 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:25 Godwrath wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:12 Hryul wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:
However, a gun is a great equalizer. And I thought you Americans don't like communism But on a serious note: No it's not. Reflexes can be trained, the will to use a gun is different for every person. Situational advantages factor in greatly. This argument is a lie. For the rest of your wall of text: A burglar is not a murderer. The sentence to robbing is not death. LOL. You'd sit down and have a beer with a burglar in your own house wouldn't you? You actually respect or think burglars have any rights whatsoever when they violate others' rights by trying to rob them? Wow. For hell sake, most robberies occur when there is no people inside the house, why do you think it works this way ? Killing instead of robbing will make you way more likely to get caught. What you do by having guns as self defense is forcing robbers to escalate their "intimidation" tools. Again were talking about reality, not a fairy tale where people won't have guns. I am talking about reality. You are the one who has a distorted vision of how to do a robbery. Get in, get out.
As I said before if someone is breaking into an occupied home you would be very wise to assume they plan on doing more than a robbery. If you want to pretend that violent crime never happens during burglaries go right ahead, the rest of us living in the real world will continue to safe guard the lives of ourselves and families.
|
On December 15 2012 05:33 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:28 Caihead wrote:On December 15 2012 05:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:21 Dknight wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:14 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:10 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:
[quote]
i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. If you want to assume someone breaking into your house while you occupy it has no intention of harming you that's your prerogative however naive it may be. In my opinion anyone breaking into my house while I am in it has knowingly forfeited his right to safety and life. So intruding or breaking and entering equals the right to take another man's life? Interesting. Yes, breaking into an occupied home equals the right to take another mans life as stated in self defense acts around the US. The result of self defense/stand your ground laws? States that have them have higher rates of homicide which contributes to an additional 500-700 deaths a year. There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. MURDER is a different than killing. Self defense with intention to kill rather than intention to protect yourself is extremely sketchy, I will just leave it at that. If someone is trying to murder you, killing them is protecting yourself. How is this concept so misunderstood.
Yeah, it is impossible to defend yourself without killing someone.
|
On December 15 2012 05:33 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:28 Caihead wrote:On December 15 2012 05:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:21 Dknight wrote:On December 15 2012 05:15 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:14 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:10 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:
[quote]
i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. If you want to assume someone breaking into your house while you occupy it has no intention of harming you that's your prerogative however naive it may be. In my opinion anyone breaking into my house while I am in it has knowingly forfeited his right to safety and life. So intruding or breaking and entering equals the right to take another man's life? Interesting. Yes, breaking into an occupied home equals the right to take another mans life as stated in self defense acts around the US. The result of self defense/stand your ground laws? States that have them have higher rates of homicide which contributes to an additional 500-700 deaths a year. There is nothing wrong with killing in self-defense. MURDER is a different than killing. Self defense with intention to kill rather than intention to protect yourself is extremely sketchy, I will just leave it at that. If someone is trying to murder you, killing them is protecting yourself. How is this concept so misunderstood.
he doesn't know what "intention" means in a murder statute.
|
On December 15 2012 05:28 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:20 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:17 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:On December 15 2012 05:04 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 05:01 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:59 L3g3nd_ wrote:On December 15 2012 04:53 iLikeRain wrote:On December 15 2012 04:43 JingleHell wrote:On December 15 2012 04:25 L3g3nd_ wrote:
whens the last time you heard of a school shooting outside of the US? i can name 5-6 major school shootings from the US in the last 10 years, but not a single one outside of the US. it isnt a bloody coincidence. If, for example, three dudes with a baseball bat or two kicked in my door (not particularly unreasonable) with the intent of robbing our apartment, all my training and experience would mean about jack shit in close quarters, unarmed. With a knife or other hand weapon, WITH considerably more training than the average civilian, I give myself good odds of taking one out of the fight, and injuring a second in that situation, if I was awake when it happened. In other words, doing just enough damage to guarantee reprisals against myself and my family. Give me my handgun, and I guarantee you, even if I'm asleep when it happens, best case scenario, three criminals fleeing or in custody, worst case, the body count doesn't include my wife or three year old son. I'd be able to look myself in the mirror if I took a life to protect my family. You're so afraid that you don't even see the danger you put all of you in? You say yourself the criminals are there to rob your apartment. Do you think they willingly commit murder as well? No. You own a handgun and if you do criminals are more careful and probably wont hesitate to kill you because they know it's you or them. I can't even remember the last time I heard about a robbery turning into gun violence here in Denmark. The vast majority of people don't own weapons and the thieves realy have nothing to fear but getting caught. They don't bring a gun into a robbery because there is no need for it when civillians don't have any. i think this is a very good point, by resisting a robbery you are putting yourself in more risk, and everyone around you in even more risk. Are you honestly saying it's better to let criminals breaking into your house do as they please instead of defending yourself? Why would you EVER risk the life of yourself or any of your family members for material goods? The thieves are there to get MONEY not to fight you, not to take your life. When you bring a gun into the mix of course they will be wary. You just showed you're willing to kill them and they ironically act in self defense. You're trusting a criminal who breaks into your house to not kill you or your family? That's the difference between your country and ours, we'd rather defend ourselves and not take that risk. The fact that a criminal breaks into your house in the first place shows the criminal means you or your family harm. Maybe we just have smarter criminals The majority of time, a thief will not want to hurt anyone. This is not because the thief is a nice person, but because they know that if they get caught they do not want to add assault charges to the thieving charges. Guns are difficult to obtain for UK criminals, but not impossible to obtain. They choose not to carry guns (most of the time). I remember a security van being robbed as it collected money from a bingo hall in London (I was across the street). The thieves were armed and shot the armed guards in the van (they did not die). On another occasion, I remember a group robbed many jewellery stores in the home counties before they were eventually caught. The thieves carried bats (not guns) because they knew that they would not be facing armed resistance, and they did not want to add firearms charges to their robbery charges (if they got caught). Lots of goods were stolen, but no on was hurt in any of the robberies. your examples are bad and out of context because you are arguing against owning guns for defense of home with examples of stealing from companies The context is good. If a criminal expects their targets to be armed then they will arm themselves. If they know their target will not be armed then they will not arm themselves. I have spoken with some dodgy people in the past, and people who burgle houses do not carry weapons because they know that if they are caught with weapons they will face extra charges.
no the context is not good, people at work are less likely to try to prevent a theft because generally they have no steak in what is being stolen, along with insurance to cover it
people at home are much more likely to try and prevent a theft because it is their own property.. as such, burglars are going to be much more likely to attack these same people when they steal from them
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
