|
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 17 2012 08:27 BluePanther wrote:Nah, those stories NEVER make it to the national news. They happen quite often though. Moreso than "rampages" that get national attention. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing for those who support legal firearms, though.
Its incredibly sad that one side literally has all the money and all the attention while the other side is literally under an black zone where nothing gets out. This person is a hero and very well prevented a copy-cat killer from dealing the same sort of damage as in CT simply by having an equalizer.
|
On December 17 2012 10:44 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 08:27 BluePanther wrote:Nah, those stories NEVER make it to the national news. They happen quite often though. Moreso than "rampages" that get national attention. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing for those who support legal firearms, though. Its incredibly sad that one side literally has all the money and all the attention while the other side is literally under an black zone where nothing gets out. This person is a hero and very well prevented a copy-cat killer from dealing the same sort of damage as in CT simply by having an equalizer.
We talked about this earlier; there are countless studies that show when a criminal has a weapon and the victim is unarmed, it generally has a non-violent ending. But when both the criminal and victim are armed, the chances it has a violent ending sky rocket, and it is usually the victim who gets hurt. This is because weapons force compliance, and that is what criminals want when they are committing their acts (unless of course they plan to kill the victim).
So while every once in a while a gun does stop a crime, you have to remember there are always exceptions to the rule.
Links from earlier:
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/10/02/public-service-announcement-owning-a-gun-means-you-are-4-5-times-more-likely-to-be-shot/
http://www.quora.com/Guns-and-Firearms/Is-it-better-to-own-a-gun-for-self-defense-or-is-that-more-likely-to-cause-problems
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
And some better, peer reviewed research links, mostly from National Institutes of Health and US National Library of Medicine (government programs):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174
From the above article: "But in a country where the majority of homicides and suicides involve a gun, it is reasonable to question whether access to a gun increases or decreases the risk of violent death."
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1990.tb00329.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619696
This particularly sad line struck me from the above article: "This small study provides some evidence that guns may be used at least as often by family members to frighten intimates as to thwart crime..."
And then this link from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=35035
Statistics are reviewed which show that a gun in the home is far more likely to lead to the death or injury of a family member or friend than to the death of an intruder. Data on victimizations and the use of firearms for self defense are then examined for the crimes of burglary, robbery, assault, and rape. In each case the effectiveness of guns in preventing or deterring the crime is analyzed, and compared to the effectiveness of other self defense methods. The data presented in this report indicate that private handgun ownership provides no significant deterrent to burglary and violent crime. It may, in fact, escalate the severity of the violence if offenders believe they must be more heavily armed than the citizenry.
There is an incredible lack of science coming from reliable peer reviewed sources supporting the NRA and pro-gun positions.
Here is a cool study regarding the ineffectiveness of NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program for children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11389238
|
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime.
|
On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime.
You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing.
You are all about the death penalty for home invasion.
|
On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing.
I read the whole thing. Ask a woman if she would like you to make the decision for her as to whether or not she can defend herself against a rapist. Your study suggests she should just lay back and take it because they know what's best for her.
edit: and now you've demonstrated that you clearly have not read what I've written. I clearly stated I was not suggesting death penalty for burglars. It's in my post about burglars should consider themselves lucky to live to stand trial.
|
On December 17 2012 13:02 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. I read the whole thing. Ask a woman if she would like you to make the decision for her as to whether or not she can defend herself against a rapist. Your study suggests she should just lay back and take it because they know what's best for her.
Yes, that is exactly what the study suggest. I didn't see Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock's name in the abstract, let me check again...
But actually if you read the study, you'd realize it suggests other forms of self defense, which are more effective at combating rape.
On December 17 2012 13:02 Kaitlin wrote:
I clearly stated I was not suggesting death penalty for burglars. It's in my post about burglars should consider themselves lucky to live to stand trial.
You can argue with yourself about whether or not people deserve the death penalty for home invasion. If you believe it is okay for someone to kill someone who breaks into their home, how is that different that saying a jury should put people to death for home invasion?
On December 17 2012 07:52 Kaitlin wrote: I believe burglars give up their right to live when they break into someone's home.
|
On December 17 2012 13:04 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:02 Kaitlin wrote:On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. I read the whole thing. Ask a woman if she would like you to make the decision for her as to whether or not she can defend herself against a rapist. Your study suggests she should just lay back and take it because they know what's best for her. Yes, that is exactly what the study suggest. I didn't see Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock's name in the abstract, let me check again...
Oh, so I guess you just read headlines and believe whatever the twisted left-wing media tells you. Akin is a douchebag and was universally renounced by Conservatives everywhere. Mourdock's statement was simply an articulation of how Christians deal with bad things that happen in the world. They attribute it to God's will. That's how they accept the horrible things in the world. Mourdock did nothing more than state basically the standard Christian belief system, and it was completely twisted. An objective consideration of what he actually said, with an honest attempt to understand would recognize that. How many times do we hear athletes attribute their success to "the glory of God" and all that. It's the same shit.
|
On December 17 2012 13:04 BronzeKnee wrote:
You can argue with yourself about whether or not people deserve the death penalty for home invasion. If you believe it is okay for someone to kill someone who breaks into their home, how is that different that saying a jury should put people to death for home invasion?
Is it really that difficult to understand the difference between an appropriate sentencing for a crime, when all facts and circumstances have been considered, as compared to a homeowner defending themselves and their family from an unknown intruder with unknown intentions ? You can't be this intellectually dishonest, can you ?
|
On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime.
I might suggest that this is the most asinine post I've ever read on this forum. I also might suggest that you are arguing death penalty, which is completely OT in regards to whether or not people should have the right to carry a firearm.
People should not own guns. Period. Bronzeknee's initial post summed it up nicely.
|
I'm not arguing death penalty. You simply can't read plain English. I've said (for the third time now) that burglary should not be a crime for which the sentence is death. However, the results of a homeowner protecting their family and property IN THEIR HOME is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with appropriate penalty to be adjudicated. I'm done, since people seem clearly unable to understand anyone else's comments.
|
On December 17 2012 13:00 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime. You apparently didn't read the whole thing. The study suggest handguns escalate the severity as criminals arm themselves even more when invading a home. That isn't a good thing. You are all about the death penalty for home invasion.
I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12828174
Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests?
All this has to be answered within a legitimate study. None of your links include anything. They're all absolutely terrible. Its personal blogs with no conclusions and no information. Some of the sites I'm not even allowed to read the stuff unless I log in. A respectable source doesn't do that.
The worst part is you don't seem to realize any of this. The sources aren't good. They aren't thorough and they provide none of the necessary information. Big Pharma and Government Statistics aren't very good proof just like NRA reports are often not very good proof for their side either. At best, the evidence is inconclusive to speak for either side.
Also with regards to the man who executed those 2 teens, this is preposterous that you're trying to use this as evidence. While he probably should've left them alive and let the authorities take over, its only easy to say because you're not in his position. If you look at the comments and follow the whole thing, you'll see an overwhelming amount of support for his decision. If you're becoming of adult age (both were) and you consciously decide to commit crime that will directly hurt other people, be prepared for what awaits. I have no sympathy for people who do such heinous things.
That whole "just let them go" mentality is how people like Adam Lanza slip through. Good logic.
|
On December 17 2012 07:39 Kaitlin wrote:
Yeah, that article is a joke. He's not in trouble because he killed them. He's in trouble for all the extra bullshit he decided to tell the cops, that and he stashed the bodies lol. Should have just shot them however many times, if they weren't dead, they would eventually be. Call the cops to report the incident and don't answer the cops questions because saying these fucks broke into my house. He wouldn't be in trouble.
He basically executed them for no reason after they were wounded, which is murder..
|
On December 17 2012 13:31 sCCrooked wrote:I looked at every "source" you posted. Half of them don't even have content. Its literally just an exerpt. Like this: Government Site. Government material is almost always skewed to show whatever agenda they want to push. Even if you debate that (you'd be foolish to), the fact still remains that link has no content but a random paragraph. It has no info on how he came to this conclusion. How were the studies conducted? Under what guidelines and criteria were the numbers manipulated? Who paid for all this and what were their interests? All this has to be answered within a legitimate study. None of your links include anything. They're all absolutely terrible. Its personal blogs with no conclusions and no information. Some of the sites I'm not even allowed to read the stuff unless I log in. A respectable source doesn't do that. The worst part is you don't seem to realize any of this. The sources aren't good. They aren't thorough and they provide none of the necessary information. Big Pharma and Government Statistics aren't very good proof just like NRA reports are often not very good proof for their side either. At best, the evidence is inconclusive to speak for either side. Also with regards to the man who executed those 2 teens, this is preposterous that you're trying to use this as evidence. While he probably should've left them alive and let the authorities take over, its only easy to say because you're not in his position. If you look at the comments and follow the whole thing, you'll see an overwhelming amount of support for his decision. If you're becoming of adult age (both were) and you consciously decide to commit crime that will directly hurt other people, be prepared for what awaits. I have no sympathy for people who do such heinous things. That whole "just let them go" mentality is how people like Adam Lanza slip through. Good logic.
1) Many peer-reviewed studies and articles are rather explicitly exclusive in terms of releasing online content; that's a very easily knowable and research-able fact. Not sure what makes you think respectable sources are necessarily free (as in beer).
2) The argument that many people sympathize with the man's instinctive decisions is both a] anecdotal and b] a rather poor defense of what should be done with law. The whole point of the legal system is that, in tandem and compromise with what we perceive to be inherent/instinctive human nature, a governing body (for/of/by the people yada yada) will be kept the most safe, healthy, and in the right. If human culture was ruled by human impulse, things would most certainly not be at an ideal. The idea of using the story (at least what I could tell) was not to illustrate whether the man was sympathetic or not, but whether his actions within his situation could be generalized and judged as right or wrong, and if so, if certain laws might help adjudicate. E.g. if no guns were had in the first place, if training was had, etc. then the man wouldn't just be sympathetic, he would be a-o-k in the eyes of the people and the law. That and it was used to illustrate that citizens are not necessarily capable at rightly judging in the moments of a situation that forms the basis of many gun lobbyists -- that all are good and good at judgment (and aim).
|
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much.
|
Yes, people should be allowed to own guns.
The problem isn't that we don't have stringent enough gun control. It's that the existing laws aren't enforced effectively. The overwhelming majority of violent gun crime in America (80-90%) is carried out by people who are prohibited by law to own guns in the first place (people convicted of felonies/have history of domestic abuse). It's obvious at this point that gun laws aren't the problem, rather it's the incompetent enforcing of the laws which are meant to make gun ownership safe.
Furthermore, the victims are oftentimes former criminals themselves (around 80-90% of all homicide victims in America have some sort of past criminal history). It's incredibly rare for an innocent bystander who has had no criminal record to be a victim of homicide of any sort. Restricting guns won't help anything.
Source: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (Section III: Do ordinary people commit murder?)
As to the argument that owning guns make households supposedly less safe. If you own guns and have young children and an accident occurred, it's your own fault for being such an idiot that the child could get to the gun. My parents owned a pistol while I was growing up, but it was always locked up in a safe and inaccessible to me. The only people in the house who could have gotten a hold of it were the ones who knew how to use the weapon and handle it safely.
In an overwhelming number of circumstances, gun accidents are the result of the stupidity of owners.
|
On December 17 2012 16:26 ConGee wrote:Yes, people should be allowed to own guns. The problem isn't that we don't have stringent enough gun control. It's that the existing laws aren't enforced effectively. The overwhelming majority of violent gun crime in America (80-90%) is carried out by people who are prohibited by law to own guns in the first place (people convicted of felonies/have history of domestic abuse). It's obvious at this point that gun laws aren't the problem, rather it's the incompetent enforcing of the laws which are meant to make gun ownership safe. Furthermore, the victims are oftentimes former criminals themselves (around 80-90% of all homicide victims in America have some sort of past criminal history). It's incredibly rare for an innocent bystander who has had no criminal record to be a victim of homicide of any sort. Restricting guns won't help anything. Source: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf (Section III: Do ordinary people commit murder?) As to the argument that owning guns make households supposedly less safe. If you own guns and have young children and an accident occurred, it's your own fault for being such an idiot that the child could get to the gun. My parents owned a pistol while I was growing up, but it was always locked up in a safe and inaccessible to me. The only people in the house who could have gotten a hold of it were the ones who knew how to use the weapon and handle it safely. In an overwhelming number of circumstances, gun accidents are the result of the stupidity of owners.
No one is arguing that guns should be all out banned. It has been about restrictions all the way.
Well, yes. Then you are one of the smart ones who know how to keep a gun safe. Now on to the other 99.99%.. We literally know -nothing- about how everyone else keeps their gun stored. This is why gun control is important. A required test before you're allowed to own a gun would show if you are capable of understand that a gun needs to be locked up at all times, and not lying on the table for your young kid to misunderstand as a wiimote.
And thats only part of the problem of owning a gun for "self defense". The other part is that using it for self defense only helps to escalate the problem. Seriously, if you're home is invaded by a burglar, call the cops and go hide. No one, especially yourself, earns anything by rushing down to meet the burglar so you can execute him.
Realize that even though you yourself think you have the gun under control, what about the rest of America? Are you really that confident that everyone is as smart as you?
|
On December 17 2012 15:51 Rhino85 wrote:
"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
lib·er·ty
/ˈlibərtē/
Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.
I'll keep my gun for home protection thank you very much.
Yes, I'm sure Benjamin Franklin think that schools all around the country needs to have constant mass murders so you can define the word "liberty" while looking smug on an internet forum.
I didn't want to touch on this earlier, because you Americans seems a bit touchy on the subject. But what in the world makes you think that a gun has anything to do with freedom? How are you more "free" by owning one? Do you honestly think there is going to be a tyranic goverment that you need to fight anytime soon? Do you think America is going to be invaded by Norway tomorrow? If the answer is no, then your "freedom" is an illusion.
|
On December 17 2012 13:31 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm not arguing death penalty. You simply can't read plain English. I've said (for the third time now) that burglary should not be a crime for which the sentence is death. However, the results of a homeowner protecting their family and property IN THEIR HOME is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with appropriate penalty to be adjudicated. I'm done, since people seem clearly unable to understand anyone else's comments.
You're arguing that you should be allowed to kill someone for taking your TV. You're not threatened in any way by him doing this with the exception of your wallet. That means that you name yourself judge, jury and executioner while the guy is in your home. You ARE arguing the death penalty for home invasion, just not after the fact.
|
On December 17 2012 16:55 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 13:31 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm not arguing death penalty. You simply can't read plain English. I've said (for the third time now) that burglary should not be a crime for which the sentence is death. However, the results of a homeowner protecting their family and property IN THEIR HOME is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with appropriate penalty to be adjudicated. I'm done, since people seem clearly unable to understand anyone else's comments. You're arguing that you should be allowed to kill someone for taking your TV. You're not threatened in any way by him doing this with the exception of your wallet. That means that you name yourself judge, jury and executioner while the guy is in your home. You ARE arguing the death penalty for home invasion, just not after the fact.
The obvious hole in your argument is that the tenant has no idea that the intruder is only there to steal a TV. What if he was actually there to harm or kill someone in your household? You cannot know in the moment and that is why self-defense with lethal force is warranted in this case, but not after the fact.
If you choose to break into someone else's home, you should not expect to be granted any mercy whatsoever.
|
On December 17 2012 17:00 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 16:55 Excludos wrote:On December 17 2012 13:31 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm not arguing death penalty. You simply can't read plain English. I've said (for the third time now) that burglary should not be a crime for which the sentence is death. However, the results of a homeowner protecting their family and property IN THEIR HOME is an entirely different matter, and has nothing to do with appropriate penalty to be adjudicated. I'm done, since people seem clearly unable to understand anyone else's comments. You're arguing that you should be allowed to kill someone for taking your TV. You're not threatened in any way by him doing this with the exception of your wallet. That means that you name yourself judge, jury and executioner while the guy is in your home. You ARE arguing the death penalty for home invasion, just not after the fact. The obvious hole in your argument is that the tenant has no idea that the intruder is only there to take your TV. What if he was actually there to harm or kill someone in your household? You cannot know in the moment and why self-defense with lethal force is warranted in this case, but not after the fact.
I completely agree, you should be allowed to defend yourself with lethal force if you feel that your life or any family members life is threatened. Thats not what he has been talking about at all in this thread. Allow me to quote:
On December 17 2012 12:58 Kaitlin wrote:
For the last bolded part, I might suggest that any burglars who are shot dead by armed homeowners will not be committing future crimes. Perhaps not a deterrent, by definition, but definitely a decrease in future crime.
He just wants to murder all home invaders, whetever they're after your TV or your wife.
Most houses doesn't have the bedroom on the same floor as the entrance. If you rush down the stairs to meet the burglar, and shoot him because you "feel threatened", then you are simply finding loopholes in the laws that allows you to execute the intruder. The fact is that you put yourself and your family in danger by doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
