|
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. |
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder.
|
On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder.
Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is?
I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual?
Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do.
And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun.
|
On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder.
This thread is running in circles. Someone will for sure bring up the hypothetical case were the burglar wants to rape your hamster and steal your pokemon collection. So you for sure want to kill him defend yourself.
I partly blame the Op because the better question would be: How restricted should the access to weapons be?
There is need for weapons (hunters) and it is completely irresponsible to give people with severe mental disorders a gun. Everything in between is up to debate though.
E: jinglehell delivered.
E2: And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance.
So the solution should be to add more guns to the equation. This surely will increase the safety. B/c it worked that good until now.
|
On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun.
"maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!"
Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live.
They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison.
I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own.
Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right?
|
On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right?
I think whether or not you can legally kill intruders is outside the scope of this thread.
|
On February 03 2013 09:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? I think whether or not you can legally kill intruders is outside the scope of this thread.
Hmm, perhaps you're right. Though I believe it went down the lines of "should people be allowed to own and carry guns>yes, so they can protect themselves in their homes against intruders>but using a gun to kill an intruder who is not there to kill you is wrong" so it is within range.
|
On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right?
So the person who defended his family from a possibly armed intruder should get more jailtime than the man who broke the law, forcing this encounter to happen in the first place?
That makes no sense whatsoever. I am all for gun regulation, and believe that our gun culture in this country is dangerous, but I also believe that anything goes once an individual breaks into my home. Assuming he is only there for your possessions, and is not some mentally deranged killer/rapist, is dumb. I would say that yes, someone who breaks the law and breaks into a home when they know the person inside could have a gun, is putting their life in that person's hands.
But that comes full circle to my belief that no, not all life is sacred, and yes I would kill someone to protect my family if that's what it came to.
As always, the reason these tragic mass shootings occur is because we actually reward these creeps with media coverage, elevating them to a glorified anti-hero, and we do not provide the necessary care to individuals with mental problems like we should. If you could snap your fingers and *poof* guns had never been invented, yeah that would fix the problem too and I'd be A-O-K with that. But we have a lot of guns in this country and a lot of people who are devout in their belief they have the right to own those guns. I doubt anything we do on that front will help alleviate these tragedies nearly as much as the two points I mentioned above.
How about we take away the motive for mass shootings rather than the weapons themselves? Wouldn't that solution be far more elegant?
|
On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right?
You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible.
The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family.
I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile.
I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes.
If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice.
|
On February 03 2013 09:33 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? So the person who defended his family from a possibly armed intruder should get more jailtime than the man who broke the law, forcing this encounter to happen in the first place? That makes no sense whatsoever. I am all for gun regulation, and believe that our gun culture in this country is dangerous, but I also believe that anything goes once an individual breaks into my home. Assuming he is only there for your possessions, and is not some mentally deranged killer/rapist, is dumb. I would say that yes, someone who breaks the law and breaks into a home when they know the person inside could have a gun, is putting their life in that person's hands. But that comes full circle to my belief that no, not all life is sacred, and yes I would kill someone to protect my family if that's what it came to. As always, the reason these tragic mass shootings occur is because we actually reward these creeps with media coverage, elevating them to a glorified anti-hero, and we do not provide the necessary care to individuals with mental problems like we should. If you could snap your fingers and *poof* guns had never been invented, yeah that would fix the problem too and I'd be A-O-K with that. But we have a lot of guns in this country and a lot of people who are devout in their belief they have the right to own those guns. I doubt anything we do on that front will help alleviate these tragedies nearly as much as the two points I mentioned above. How about we take away the motive for mass shootings rather than the weapons themselves? Wouldn't that solution be far more elegant?
The person who shoots and kills someone who is snooping around trying to steal is not using reasonable force in self defence (or in this case, defence of their property). This is a crime, and is taking human life, and should be punished as such.
The person who shoots and kills someone who attacks that person or their family is using reasonable force in self-defence. This is not a crime, and should not be punished.
In an ideal world, taking away any kind of murder at all would be the "elegant solution". But such a thing is impossible. Limiting the availability of tools designed to kill with ease is the best way to prevent people from being shot.
It really is as simple as "if there are less guns, less people get shot". Will it prevent gun crime entirely? No. Will mass shootings still happen? Probably. Will less people die every year? Damn right they will.
In my eyes, if gun control stops even 1 innocent person from dying every year (let alone 10,000), there is no reason not to do it. Human life is worth so much more than the words of a piece of paper.
|
JingleHell, I think most of these burglar/robbery sympathetic types don't have a family and don't realize the severity of breaking into a home were there are children present. Once/if they have kids I bet they change their minds on the right to protect your home and household.
|
On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice.
Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww.
The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force.
It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved.
If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved.
Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different.
They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them.
They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die.
So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them.
Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that.
|
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar
|
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best.
|
On February 03 2013 08:59 white_horse wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. Nobody cares about your anecdotal stories of chasing off bad guys because you had a gun and were able to save yourself. The people asking for more gun control don't have a problem with your guns. The point is, how are we going to make the laws better and stronger so that the wrong people don't get guns? People who shouldn't be able to get guns were able to in the case of sandy hook or VT - so how can we strengthen the laws so that those kind of people with psychological problems cannot get guns? You have to acknowledge there is something wrong with the ways guns are regulated when people are dying in situations when they never should have.
Sandy Hook is just as anecdotal. I have to acknowledge hypothetical situations where gun laws would have saved lives just as much as you have to acknowledge hypothetical situations where the absence of gun control saved lives. Here is something that isn't as anecdotal though:
On February 02 2013 06:16 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 06:01 TheFrankOne wrote:
I don't know, I would like to know, but finding data on this subject is a pain in the ass. The best thing I could find is this. Show nested quote + There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
---
Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."
"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."
"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."
Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."
(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.) Basically the NCVS uses faulty methods in their surveys to come to their estimate of about 108,000 annual defensive gun uses (which is still quite high) and that many other surveys have found that the number of annual DGUs is more likely to range anywhere from 800,000 to 2.5 million. Taking this into consideration, wouldn't that mean that 278 people killed in the name of self defense by private citizens (2010) is actually a very good thing, and that a majority of the DGUs result in nobody dying at all?
|
On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that.
Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right?
It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder.
When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them.
|
On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar
Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice.
On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best.
You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent.
Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently.
|
On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently.
Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family.
|
On February 03 2013 10:00 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:50 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:36 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:24 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:17 JingleHell wrote:On February 03 2013 09:09 Larkin wrote:
I still don't understand how people think a gun is the solution to protecting your home. The police can't get there immediately, but that is not a reason to shoot and kill someone in your home. You should only ever aim to incapacitate and restrain an intruder until the police arrive, and when people have guns in their homes that won't happen, people will just die. Is it fair to shoot someone who breaks in? Is breaking and entering on a par with murder?
Not only that, but if guns are easy to get for people to defend their homes, intruders will be more likely to bring their own guns with them, which in itself will only lead to more violence and likely more death.
And of course, the statistical proof that if you keep a gun in your household you are more likely to injure or kill yourself or an innocent person than a hostile intruder. Maybe I should post a sign on the door, asking people to fill out a "Breaking and Entering" application, so I know whether they're dangerous, whether they're armed, and what their intent is? I suppose then, I can just package up whatever they want, hand it to them, and maybe help carry it downstairs, since they're such a nice, trustworthy individual? Get the fuck over yourself. They're not getting murdered, they voluntarily gamble their own rights when they jeopardize other people's. That's the intent of laws, to determine an appropriate response to attacks on individual rights. And here, it's legal to use lethal force because you don't know what that person who broke in is going to do. And don't tell me that not owning a gun is going to make that criminal less likely to own a gun. Not when there's so many guns in circulation already. Not a damn chance. And statistics aren't "proof", they're evidence. I could just as easily injure or kill myself grabbing a kitchen knife if someone tried to break in. Not particularly hard, and nobody tells me to put my knife block in a bank vault when I'm not making breakfast. And that thing's easier to get to than my handgun. "maybe I should overreact, be sarcastic and use my ego rather than argue intelligently!" Unless they break in and come straight for you, chances are they're not there to hurt you. They're there for your stuff. Most probably because they're poor and need to sell it to live. They've lost their right to "freedom" and should be imprisoned for their crime, but they have not lost their right to live. Killing someone for breaking and entering is totally unnecessary, and in my eyes the person who intentionally kills someone for breaking and entering and burglary is deserving of far longer in prison. I was talking about a hypothetical situation, a blank canvas country if you will. If the people are allowed to buy guns very easily, people who burgle will likely have guns of their own. Let me guess, I'm now a liberal retard and a Communist, right? You're cute. You can't even debate valid points, so you try to redirect in the most ironic way possible. The law says whether it's legal or not. Also, if you didn't catch my point because you were too busy not reading it because you couldn't think of a good comeback, you don't know what the fuck the person who just broke in is willing to do to you or your family. I'm not particularly willing to leave it up to their good graces, and hope they only want my shit. Hope they aren't on meth or some shit. Hope they don't freak when they see me and pull a knife or gun. Hope they aren't a rapist or a pedophile. I can't read their mind. Tough shit, maybe they should have moved to the UK or Canada to have easier pickings with their crimes. If there's only a 1% chance something bad will happen to my family in that situation, it's still a chance I won't take as long as I can do something to prevent it. I didn't create the situation, the criminal did. They took it on themselves, made the decision, rolled the dice. Hey, that's funny, you're accusing me of doing all the things you're doing! N'aww. The law says that you are not allowed to pre-emptively react with deadly force. It's not about "hoping" - which is you twisting my words and exaggerating the situation - it's about reacting appropriately. If you are, say, in bed, and you hear someone breaking in, go and investigate. Take a freaking bat or something if that makes you feel safer (we're still in hypothetical gun control land here). Apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. If they break in, charge up the stairs and start attacking you or your family, then the same process applies - apprehend them, call the police, problem solved. Were this in "everyone can buy a gun land", also known as the USA, the two hypotheticals are different. They're snooping around, you go down and kill them - that's unreasonable force and you've essentially just murdered someone. You can still apprehend them without need to kill them. They come with the objective of attacking you - well, if they have a gun too, unless you're incredibly quick to react you or your family member is likely dead before they too die. So in gun control land, no one dies, in no gun control land, 1-2 people die. Which is better? You can prevent the situation without killing them. Perhaps they should have come to the UK. 722 people died from violent crime last year. 14,748 did in America. Curious, that. Are you actually this naive? "Apprehend them" with a baseball bat? How, exactly, do you do that without chasing them down and beating the fuck out of them (which can kill them)? Also, I suppose my mom could totally grab a baseball bat and "apprehend" me, if I had a blunt object too, right? It's not "unreasonable" force, it's not "murder". They sacrifice their rights by endangering mine. I can't read their mind, I don't know their intention. I don't create the situation. I'm not talking about me getting a CHL and wandering around my apartment complex talking shit to people until someone jumps me so I can shoot them. That would be a fucking murder. When they break in, they have chosen to gamble their life. That's what the law says. I don't really give a damn if you dislike that fact, it IS a fact. I'd rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, and if you think there's something wrong with that, I'd suggest that your effort to be "civilized" has gone overboard, because there's no point in laws if they hurt the people who obey them.
Well I actually said go and investigate, and to take a weapon if that makes you feel safer. It's more for the threat. I would think the situation would actually be a "get the **** out of my home" whereupon the criminal promptly does so and runs for it. If he had intended to harm you he would have done so.
It is unreasonable force. Killing someone when a threat is not present or imminent is illegal in most US states. In New York, the distinction is less present:
"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...."
If someone was snooping around in your house and stealing things, would you reasonably believe that you should kill him, or just apprehend him?
I would rather no one dies at all. If you would rather dead criminals than dead or hurt innocents, why do you advocate the continued existence of gun laws that allow people to murder thousands of innocent people year after year, go into schools and murder innocent children - and indeed, break into homes and murder the occupants?
|
On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent.
False, it's called castle doctrine. Maybe you should do a little research before you attempt to argue about something you know nothing about.
Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently.
What? I said attempting apprehend someone invading your home is a childish fantasy. Your reading comprehension is appalling. You should leave this thread, your 'style' of 'debating' is horrid.
|
On February 03 2013 10:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 10:01 Larkin wrote:On February 03 2013 09:54 Rhino85 wrote:
Larkin, do you have kids?
And if so, are you willing to bet their life on the fact that you can "apprehend" the intruder with a baseball bat?
Edit: for grammar Do you genuinely think someone would break into a home with the objective of killing my children? If they wanted to do that, regardless of whether I had a gun or not, they would likely succeed before I could exact justice. On February 03 2013 09:54 heliusx wrote:
In the majority of America you can use lethal force on anyone who breaks into your home. The apprehend home invaders fantasy you have is childish at best. You can only use lethal force if the threat is present and imminent. Yes, wishing for a world where home invasions don't result in death is childish. Adults love shooting each other, apparently. Oh because you lack confidence in your ability to protect your family that means no one else should be able to? Sorry, I think the rest of us who have backbones would like our right to shoot anyone attacking our family.
Ad hominem.
If the criminal has a gun, if I have a gun - if people are allowed to buy guns with ease - whichever way it ends people are going to die. So I argue people shouldn't have guns, because I'd rather people don't die. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4952
135
90
1
EPT
