|
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 05:29 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?"
In the US, the thief will probably be armed, because the resident may be armed. In countries with gun control it is highly unlikely that the thief would be armed. Thieves wont even carry a crowbar for breaking in because they may get caught with it on the way to their target. I would rather be in a fist fight than a gun fight.
|
On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote: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.
Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe 
|
On December 15 2012 05:29 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell 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. 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.
Well, how effective people are at defending themselves with handguns just speaks to a failure in the process. In a perfect system, people would be required to have a fair amount of training to be able to carry, or to keep a gun in their home outside a gun safe.
Again, ex-Infantry. I'm more than aware of how dangerous inexperienced people with guns can be.
However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem. I sincerely doubt that if we built a giant electromagnet to collect every gun in the country, it would cease violent crime. It would just stop us from hearing the story of the young female stopping the violent ex-boyfriend instead of ending up in the hospital or worse.
|
On December 15 2012 05:34 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:33 Esk23 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I'll be blunt with you. No American jury will convict someone who was clearly acting in self-defense, even if they didn't "have" to. If it was at all reasonable, they will acquit.
|
On December 15 2012 05:26 HazMat wrote:
I hope this shooting prompts the US government to do something. It's been 13 years since Columbine...
It won't. It's why the election debates barely touched on the topic. Both parties are too afraid of the gun lobbyists. They're also afraid of losing votes.
Their hole will only dig deeper.
|
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.
I simply doubt the "countless". And I doubt the situation "it is my life or the life of the thiefes" occurs oh so often. I thought you were living in a first world country not fucking somalia.
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:34 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 Esk23 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll be blunt with you. No American jury will convict someone who was clearly acting in self-defense, even if they didn't "have" to. If it was at all reasonable, they will acquit.
Zimmerman case is just that, is it not? He is claiming he was defending himself and that thing is a god damn mess.
|
LOL guise y is der fewd problam in du african jungol???? i dun get it plz evarybady ned fewd no?
Utopia -> that way :l cY@
User was banned for this post.
|
1019 Posts
On December 15 2012 05:36 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:26 HazMat wrote:
I hope this shooting prompts the US government to do something. It's been 13 years since Columbine... It won't. It's why the election debates barely touched on the topic. Both parties are too afraid of the gun lobbyists. They're also afraid of losing votes. Their hole will only dig deeper.
Pretty much sums up the current political situation in the US. The country needs stronger gun laws and stronger regulation. Won't happen with all the nutty NRA people frothing at their mouths over their 2nd amendment.
On December 15 2012 05:07 Esk23 wrote:
However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem.
^Typical pro-gun rights supporter's argument for more guns. That isn't a reason to keep guns deregulated in the US. It's a culture issue. Some people in the country are so steeped in their head into the argument that more guns makes everyone safer that even if a gunman killed all the people around them, they wouldn't change their attitudes. This is why mass shootings in the US will continue and why the world will continue to laugh at us.
|
On December 15 2012 05:34 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:29 JingleHell 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. 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?" In the US, the thief will probably be armed, because the resident may be armed. In countries with gun control it is highly unlikely that the thief would be armed. Thieves wont even carry a crowbar for breaking in because they may get caught with it on the way to their target. I would rather be in a fist fight than a gun fight.
Would you feel better being in a fist fight with three people with baseball bats? That can kill you even if they aren't trying to. What about a kitchen knife?
I'd prefer to pull a gun, and see them run away or get on the ground. Fuck the whole fighting part of it.
Also, the misconception that the thief will be armed because the resident will be? No, the thief will be because it's available (and still would be for a VERY long time if we banned them). Why do burglars like weapons or numbers? Because it means they establish control of the situation. Being armed yourself means you have the chance to do so instead.
|
On December 15 2012 05:34 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:28 hzflank wrote: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:
[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. 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
So why were the guards of the security van shot? They were at work. They were shot because both parties were armed.
I have associated with some really dodgy people in the past. I have unfortunately known several people who have robbed many homes. I know for a fact that they would never go armed and would always run rather than fight. Put yourself in their shoes. What are their objectives and what are the best ways for them to achieve it?
|
On December 15 2012 05:37 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:35 BluePanther wrote:On December 15 2012 05:34 Hypemeup wrote:On December 15 2012 05:33 Esk23 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I'll be blunt with you. No American jury will convict someone who was clearly acting in self-defense, even if they didn't "have" to. If it was at all reasonable, they will acquit. Zimmerman case is just that, is it not? He is claiming he was defending himself and that thing is a god damn mess.
"claiming" and "clearly" are two different things. It's not as clear in the Zimmerman case. Based on what I know though, I'd be shocked if Zimmerman is not acquitted. If this incident occurred in Zimmerman's house, it wouldn't have gone beyond the 10'oclock local news.
|
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.
Numbers contradict you. You are more likely to get killed than us. And no I am also not more likely to be robbed, you are also more likely to be robbed.
Thanks to that I live in no fear.
|
On December 15 2012 05:38 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:36 Eps wrote:On December 15 2012 05:26 HazMat wrote:
I hope this shooting prompts the US government to do something. It's been 13 years since Columbine... It won't. It's why the election debates barely touched on the topic. Both parties are too afraid of the gun lobbyists. They're also afraid of losing votes. Their hole will only dig deeper. Pretty much sums up the current political situation in the US. The country needs stronger gun laws and stronger regulation. Won't happen with all the nutty NRA people frothing at their mouths over their 2nd amendment.
The meaning and purpose of the 2nd amendment has been lost long ago.
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:29 mcc wrote:On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell 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. 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:
[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. 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. Well, how effective people are at defending themselves with handguns just speaks to a failure in the process. In a perfect system, people would be required to have a fair amount of training to be able to carry, or to keep a gun in their home outside a gun safe. Again, ex-Infantry. I'm more than aware of how dangerous inexperienced people with guns can be. However, the guns don't cause the problem, the people cause the problem. I sincerely doubt that if we built a giant electromagnet to collect every gun in the country, it would cease violent crime. It would just stop us from hearing the story of the young female stopping the violent ex-boyfriend instead of ending up in the hospital or worse.
Here's where I disagree with the "guns" aren't the problem "it is the user".
Easy access to the guns is the issue. I'm not saying to ban guns. But there really needs to be far stricter regulations in the US. The speed and availability to obtain a gun over there is astonishing.
The process for me to obtain a gun right now in Canada has reached 6+ months. And it'll most likely take another 3+ months before I can even go purchase. It's the difference between our regulation and the US.
|
On December 15 2012 05:32 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:29 Esk23 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. 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)
Can you provide me some evidence that backs up even a tiny inch of what you are saying?
http://www.gunsandammoenthusiastblog.com/criminals-fear-armed-citizens-more-then-the-police-poll-states/
1. Would you B&E (break and enter) a home if you thought it occupied?
A. No — 88 percent (the other 12 percent are hard-core burglars).
2. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and maybe had a gun?
A. No — 95 percent (the other 5 percent are called cat burglars)
3. Would you B&E a home if you knew the owner was home and did, in fact, have a gun?
A. No — 100 percent (I told you they fear the homeowner).
No other survey I studied in my 27 years of law enforcement in Miami Metro Dade County did I see a 100 percent, not even for a Mother’s Day holiday.
In the US, most criminals fear us, in your country it's appears to be the opposite.
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:33 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 05:29 Godwrath wrote: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. Yet you have the highest ratio of death by gun. Keep being safe
At this point I don't even know what youre getting at. What does that have to do with anything? I wouldn't expect much more from someone who claims you shouldn't have guns because criminals won't kill you if you don't have them. Talk about living in a fantasy.
|
On December 15 2012 05:38 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:34 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On December 15 2012 05:28 hzflank wrote: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:
[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. 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 So why were the guards of the security van shot? They were at work. They were shot because both parties were armed. I have associated with some really dodgy people in the past. I have unfortunately known several people who have robbed many homes. I know for a fact that they would never go armed and would always run rather than fight. Put yourself in their shoes. What are their objectives and what are the best ways for them to achieve it?
If someone broke into my house, I'd shoot first and scare them away second. Why? Because they deserve it.
|
On December 15 2012 05:22 JingleHell wrote:
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.
Appeals to emotion make my brain hurt. Let's avoid fallacies people.
|
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.
do you think that people with guns all have signs posted on the door saying that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
