|
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 August 28 2014 22:09 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 21:35 zatic wrote:On August 28 2014 21:21 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. ![[image loading]](http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-20-at-8.59.21-AM.png) You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer. Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the number of guns per 100k is still rising, while the number of gun owning house holds is actually dropping. So, really, all those correlations with crime make even less sense. Correct on both points. Also this is fun to look at. A few good stats like firearm homicide by race and it's all broken down into states which include percentage of homes with firearms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/p.s. blacks are 12% of our population.
The data is normalized for race distribution. So the % of blacks does not matter (or it only matters as extra info)
edit: it's nice to see the % of households with guns, very interesting data.
edit2: Nothing happens in South Dakota, while more than 50% has a firearm in their household, and the same for Montana :-)
|
On August 28 2014 22:39 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 21:35 zatic wrote:On August 28 2014 21:21 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer. Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the number of guns per 100k is still rising, while the number of gun owning house holds is actually dropping. So, really, all those correlations with crime make even less sense. Correct on both points. Also this is fun to look at. A few good stats like firearm homicide by race and it's all broken down into states which include percentage of homes with firearms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/p.s. blacks are 12% of our population. The data is normalized for race distribution. So the % of blacks does not matter (or it only matters as extra info) edit: it's nice to see the % of households with guns, very interesting data. edit2: Nothing happens in South Dakota, while more than 50% has a firearm in their household, and the same for Montana :-)
Blacks are 12% of the population and account for at least 55% of firearm homicides. This is a fact to ponder.
|
On August 28 2014 22:39 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 21:35 zatic wrote:On August 28 2014 21:21 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer. Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the number of guns per 100k is still rising, while the number of gun owning house holds is actually dropping. So, really, all those correlations with crime make even less sense. Correct on both points. Also this is fun to look at. A few good stats like firearm homicide by race and it's all broken down into states which include percentage of homes with firearms. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/p.s. blacks are 12% of our population. The data is normalized for race distribution. So the % of blacks does not matter (or it only matters as extra info) edit: it's nice to see the % of households with guns, very interesting data. edit2: Nothing happens in South Dakota, while more than 50% has a firearm in their household, and the same for Montana :-)
That's because maybe ten people live in those states. 
|
On August 28 2014 21:53 KaiserChuck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:45 Incognoto wrote:
Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property. Wait, you're saying it's not your role to protect yourself and your family from harm? That everyone across the spectrum should just call the police whenever there's a problem and hope for the best? That's definitely a modern, urban, entitled mindset - and I would say utterly naive. Firstly, at least in the US, the police actually have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Are you willing to "roll the dice" with your personal safety like that? What if you live in a higher crime area, are you willing to roll those dice a couple times a year? Secondly, where I live, average police response times hover around 15 minutes. You're saying that if a couple of armed burglars kick in my door at 3am, I'm supposed to call the police and just huddle with my family waiting for the cops to come? For fifteen minutes? And just hope for the best? No sir. I will protect myself, my family, and my property with all means at my disposal. I have owned and trained with many different firearms dating back to my first .22 rifle as a boy scout. I can not (or will not) rely solely on possibly competent, possibly timely police action to keep my family safe. That's exactly why the law allows me to use deadly force if my own or my family's safety is in danger. In fact, legal citizens' use of firearms to thwart crimes in progress averages 2.5 times the police use of same, with one fifth as many mistaken shootings as the police. I realize we come from different parts of the world, but the "gun culture" many refer to in the US isn't all gangs & drug dealers. The vast majority of firearms in the US are owned legally and used responsibly. The fact that our nation was founded by an armed citizenry fighting off foreign domination probably has something to do with that mindset.
Wow, that typical gun nut fantasy. You've gone and described it down to a T. Well done.
One wonders how many 3am kicking down doors armed burglars there are, who are targetting your home wherever it is in your neighbourhood, who are not only armed and burgling, yet you need guns to defend against, and even though they are armed, you will totally get the first shot, and you will get your .22 rifle or whatever gun quietly and instantly from whatever locked and concealed box it is stored in as you are a totally responsible gun owner with a family, and shoot them first in this totally fantastic scenario where these armed burglars are looking to kill you, not just to burgle. As opposed to the very common death from a family member gets home drunk and gets shot because of the totallly paranoid person with an itchy trigger finger and his fantasy who carefully unlocks and loads his gun in the silence and dark of the night.
|
„Defending“ your home with force, while very understandable, is just not smart.
By doing it you and your family are way more likely to get hurt/killed.
What you should do? Leave the house asap. Most of your stuff will be insured anyway, so think about, what do you really have to lose and is it worth the risk to get yourself and your family more likely to be badly injured/killed?
You want to scare off intruders? Get a Dog.
Btw: Europe was basically forged by Millenia of war, yet we don't have a hardon for swords and weapons that lead to our countries.... The US fight against its former goverment, is nothing truely special, not any more special than various other revolutions/wars/whatever.
|
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you.
|
On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you. Interesting fantasy scenario. Why are your family sleeping and you are the only one awake? Why is the people invading your home have not taking their own precautions to protect themselves from the residents of the home? Why is it that in these scenarios the invaders, whoever they are appear to be deaf and blind with the mental and physical capacity of a baby?
Why is a discussion on the glorification of gun culture where it is acceptable to glorify the weapons itself, not to hunt, but to kill with organised crime like weapons, end up with said proponents of said culture to describe such fantastic scenarios?
|
On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you.
Ok... To make it simple:
"Smart" thing to do if your home gets invaded --> Avoid confrontation (so get out or lock yourself into some room and wait).
|
On August 28 2014 23:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you. Interesting fantasy scenario. Why are your family sleeping and you are the only one awake? Why is the people invading your home have not taking their own precautions to protect themselves from the residents of the home? Why is it that in these scenarios the invaders, whoever they are appear to be deaf and blind with the mental and physical capacity of a baby? Why is a discussion on the glorification of gun culture where it is acceptable to glorify the weapons itself, not to hunt, but to kill with organised crime like weapons, end up with said proponents of said culture to describe such fantastic scenarios?
How is having a sleeping family when someone breaks into your house a fantasy? I grew up in one of the most dangerous cities in North America. I've been mugged,robbed,jumped and everything in between. Home invasions while people sleep are a daily occurrence where I live. The only fantasy is the one you create.
|
On August 28 2014 23:15 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you. Ok... To make it simple: "Smart" thing to do if your home gets invaded --> Avoid confrontation (so get out or lock yourself into some room and wait).
Yes that is the best thing to do. I actually have a post in here a few years ago stating just that. If someone breaks into your occupied home at night you better be ready to defend yourself regardless. If they wanted to only steal they would wait until the home is empty.
On December 19 2012 10:33 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 10:28 micronesia wrote:On December 19 2012 10:26 heliusx wrote:
Maybe I'm overly cynical but if anyone breaks into my home while I am in it I will assume they intend to harm me and react based on that. I don't have a second floor to retreat to and I think confronting an intruder for any reason other than opening fire on sight is a really bad idea. Of course I also live alone so I don't have to worry about family. Notice how at no point did you say you would try to punish him for breaking in! I think it's natural to want to prevent the worst case scenario of the intruder destroying your life when you could have prevented it by defending yourself. The problem remains though that having the gun out also increases the chances of the encounter escalating and ultimately you dying if your lose the 'battle' (not to mention the possible unnecessary death of the intruder). Well in a perfect situation of self defense while in your home you would hide in your bedroom and open fire as soon as they attempt to enter that room. Thats what I was taught at least. The chances of you losing such an ambush is pretty small in that situation. Like I said I don't think confronting them is a good idea. You should call the police, ready your weapon, and stay in your room unless of course you have a family to protect. I don't.
|
On August 28 2014 14:57 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 13:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:38 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:31 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:22 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets. It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them. Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with? Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero. It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite. Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun? But he wasn't beaten to death. He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next. So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented. We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation. They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy. I definitely would be fearing for my life. I'm also not cocky enough to think I'd go full rambo when 20 guys start attacking me, and if I did own a gun, I'd probably fumble it pretty damn badly. And if I did actually did manage to draw it before they started beating me (because I doubt I'd be able to once they'd begun), with a whole biker gang surrounding me, there's no way in hell I'd believe I could stop them from drawing any guns of their own. The use of the gun in such a situation would not be to kill 20 bikers; it would be to scare them off. It's a deterrent, as I've said before. You're not going to start fucking with someone, even 20 on 1, if that person has a gun. Why would you risk death just to have fun, make a point or steal?
Because there are idiots EVERYWHERE. Just imagine if for hypothetical reason, the driver was alone in a hangar with that same gang (no driver's family involved) : He drew a gun. Since everyone can carry one, what would you think are the chances of one of those gang's guy would actually trigger their own ? I can guarantee you, there'd be at least 1.
|
Can't we reach some sort of compromise? It seems apparent that you're not going to get things to change in the US by telling people you want to remove all guns. By arguing that, you're just going to antagonize people and get nowhere. Maybe start with something smaller? It's not like you can only either remove all guns or keep everything the way it is, gun control does not have to equal gun eradication. If we can agree on some sort of background checking that makes sense, we could make it so the people who just want to defend their home would still get access to the gun, and in the same time make it so people who tell their hair stylist they can't wait for a burglar to come into their house so they can shoot and kill them would not get legal access to guns. Seems fairly sane to me, right?
|
On August 28 2014 22:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 21:53 KaiserChuck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:45 Incognoto wrote:
Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property. Wait, you're saying it's not your role to protect yourself and your family from harm? That everyone across the spectrum should just call the police whenever there's a problem and hope for the best? That's definitely a modern, urban, entitled mindset - and I would say utterly naive. Firstly, at least in the US, the police actually have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Are you willing to "roll the dice" with your personal safety like that? What if you live in a higher crime area, are you willing to roll those dice a couple times a year? Secondly, where I live, average police response times hover around 15 minutes. You're saying that if a couple of armed burglars kick in my door at 3am, I'm supposed to call the police and just huddle with my family waiting for the cops to come? For fifteen minutes? And just hope for the best? No sir. I will protect myself, my family, and my property with all means at my disposal. I have owned and trained with many different firearms dating back to my first .22 rifle as a boy scout. I can not (or will not) rely solely on possibly competent, possibly timely police action to keep my family safe. That's exactly why the law allows me to use deadly force if my own or my family's safety is in danger. In fact, legal citizens' use of firearms to thwart crimes in progress averages 2.5 times the police use of same, with one fifth as many mistaken shootings as the police. I realize we come from different parts of the world, but the "gun culture" many refer to in the US isn't all gangs & drug dealers. The vast majority of firearms in the US are owned legally and used responsibly. The fact that our nation was founded by an armed citizenry fighting off foreign domination probably has something to do with that mindset. Wow, that typical gun nut fantasy. You've gone and described it down to a T. Well done. One wonders how many 3am kicking down doors armed burglars there are, who are targetting your home wherever it is in your neighbourhood, who are not only armed and burgling, yet you need guns to defend against, and even though they are armed, you will totally get the first shot, and you will get your .22 rifle or whatever gun quietly and instantly from whatever locked and concealed box it is stored in as you are a totally responsible gun owner with a family, and shoot them first in this totally fantastic scenario where these armed burglars are looking to kill you, not just to burgle. As opposed to the very common death from a family member gets home drunk and gets shot because of the totallly paranoid person with an itchy trigger finger and his fantasy who carefully unlocks and loads his gun in the silence and dark of the night.
So I see a lot of hyperbole, with nothing more to offer than attempting to ridicule this point of view. Shooting drunk family members coming home late is a "very common death"? Really?? Who's the nut here?
I would argue that (usually extended) family member deaths are more likely to occur simply because 65% of all break-ins involve someone that is known to the victim(s), a significant number of which, it's safe to assume, are family or extended family.
My .45 is safely stored within arm's reach of my bed and unlockable (only by an adult, keys are recessed too far for children's fingers) in the dark with 2 finger presses. You've entwined multiple conflicting scenarios which make no sense to me or millions of rural Americans like me, without quoting any sources or making any real points, while attempting to de-legitimize my post by calling me a 'gun nut'. You have played the ignorant gun basher to a T. Well done.
On August 28 2014 23:01 Velr wrote:
„Defending“ your home with force, while very understandable, is just not smart.
By doing it you and your family are way more likely to get hurt/killed.
What you should do? Leave the house asap. Most of your stuff will be insured anyway, so think about, what do you really have to lose and is it worth the risk to get yourself and your family more likely to be badly injured/killed?
You want to scare off intruders? Get a Dog.
Btw: Europe was basically forged by Millenia of war, yet we don't have a hardon for swords and weapons that lead to our countries.... The US fight against its former goverment, is nothing truely special, not any more special than various other revolutions/wars/whatever.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that having a family emergency plan for break-ins increases the safety of the family. Living in a small townhouse without a backdoor: wife takes kids to interior bathroom for maximum protection; wife calls 911 & reports intrusion; I arm myself & defend at chokepoint. It's not about protecting my television or not wanting to file insurance claims - it's about not knowing the intentions of an intruder. Not knowing if it's a thief, a rapist, or a thrill-killer.
In response to your second statement, I don't actually think our revolution was any more special than others' fight for self-determination. I loathe the point of view that some Americans have, that somehow our nation was divinely ordained to bring the "light of democracy" to the world, or whatever bullshit philosophy keeps allowing our government's unjust wars for the last 50 years around the world. I simply happen to be American, and this thread seems to revolve around gun ownership in America, therefore my points pertained to this locale.
Though I do find it interesting that the European point of view tends to be simply to run away from danger and hope someone comes to your rescue.
|
Afraid people are easier to control and manipulate. Your media did a fantastic job of implanting that fear into your heads.
On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you.
You seem to have some bad experiences and your condition plays a big part, i get that. But honestly:
Are you serious? That's 100% rediculous. If someone really wants to harm/kill you, breaking into your house with the risk of facing a firearm is about the dumbest thing you can do.
If you want to kill someone would you do that? You can never know what to expect. Only a complete nutter would invade your home just to harm/kill you and you can never ever be 100% safe from people like that. Desperate people, drug addicts, etc do home invasions without knowing what to expect and they're in it for the money.
|
It's ridiculous to assume a home invader intends to harm you? Is this some kind of joke? Some of us live in the big boy world where you need to be responsible for your own safety.
|
On August 29 2014 00:22 r00ty wrote:Afraid people are easier to control and manipulate. Your media did a fantastic job of implanting that fear into your heads. Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you. You seem to have some bad experiences and your condition plays a big part, i get that. But honestly: Are you serious? That's 100% rediculous. If someone really wants to harm/kill you, breaking into your house with the risk of facing a firearm is about the dumbest thing you can do. If you want to kill someone would you do that? You can never know what to expect. Only a complete nutter would invade your home just to harm/kill you and you can never ever be 100% safe from people like that. Desperate people, drug addicts, etc do home invasions without knowing what to expect and they're in it for the money.
So your solution is to give the benefit of the doubt to the people breaking into my house...yeah no thank you. Just because it is dumb for someone to break into an American home where the owners may have firearms doesn't mean that people don't or won't do it. People do dumb shit all the time. And those desperate people and drug addicts who do it for the money are just that, desperate and drug-addled. Not someone I would trust to break in, take my stereo, and then leave quietly.
I don't own a gun and don't live an area where I think I will ever need one, but I don't begrudge the people who do. A home invader is already a criminal by being a home invader, why would we trust them to not harm us or our families? That seems awfully naive.
|
On August 29 2014 00:03 KaiserChuck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 21:53 KaiserChuck wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:45 Incognoto wrote:
Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property. Wait, you're saying it's not your role to protect yourself and your family from harm? That everyone across the spectrum should just call the police whenever there's a problem and hope for the best? That's definitely a modern, urban, entitled mindset - and I would say utterly naive. Firstly, at least in the US, the police actually have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Are you willing to "roll the dice" with your personal safety like that? What if you live in a higher crime area, are you willing to roll those dice a couple times a year? Secondly, where I live, average police response times hover around 15 minutes. You're saying that if a couple of armed burglars kick in my door at 3am, I'm supposed to call the police and just huddle with my family waiting for the cops to come? For fifteen minutes? And just hope for the best? No sir. I will protect myself, my family, and my property with all means at my disposal. I have owned and trained with many different firearms dating back to my first .22 rifle as a boy scout. I can not (or will not) rely solely on possibly competent, possibly timely police action to keep my family safe. That's exactly why the law allows me to use deadly force if my own or my family's safety is in danger. In fact, legal citizens' use of firearms to thwart crimes in progress averages 2.5 times the police use of same, with one fifth as many mistaken shootings as the police. I realize we come from different parts of the world, but the "gun culture" many refer to in the US isn't all gangs & drug dealers. The vast majority of firearms in the US are owned legally and used responsibly. The fact that our nation was founded by an armed citizenry fighting off foreign domination probably has something to do with that mindset. Wow, that typical gun nut fantasy. You've gone and described it down to a T. Well done. One wonders how many 3am kicking down doors armed burglars there are, who are targetting your home wherever it is in your neighbourhood, who are not only armed and burgling, yet you need guns to defend against, and even though they are armed, you will totally get the first shot, and you will get your .22 rifle or whatever gun quietly and instantly from whatever locked and concealed box it is stored in as you are a totally responsible gun owner with a family, and shoot them first in this totally fantastic scenario where these armed burglars are looking to kill you, not just to burgle. As opposed to the very common death from a family member gets home drunk and gets shot because of the totallly paranoid person with an itchy trigger finger and his fantasy who carefully unlocks and loads his gun in the silence and dark of the night. So I see a lot of hyperbole, with nothing more to offer than attempting to ridicule this point of view. Shooting drunk family members coming home late is a " very common death"? Really?? Who's the nut here? I would argue that (usually extended) family member deaths are more likely to occur simply because 65% of all break-ins involve someone that is known to the victim(s), a significant number of which, it's safe to assume, are family or extended family. My .45 is safely stored within arm's reach of my bed and unlockable (only by an adult, keys are recessed too far for children's fingers) in the dark with 2 finger presses. You've entwined multiple conflicting scenarios which make no sense to me or millions of rural Americans like me, without quoting any sources or making any real points, while attempting to de-legitimize my post by calling me a 'gun nut'. You have played the ignorant gun basher to a T. Well done. Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 23:01 Velr wrote:
„Defending“ your home with force, while very understandable, is just not smart.
By doing it you and your family are way more likely to get hurt/killed.
What you should do? Leave the house asap. Most of your stuff will be insured anyway, so think about, what do you really have to lose and is it worth the risk to get yourself and your family more likely to be badly injured/killed?
You want to scare off intruders? Get a Dog.
Btw: Europe was basically forged by Millenia of war, yet we don't have a hardon for swords and weapons that lead to our countries.... The US fight against its former goverment, is nothing truely special, not any more special than various other revolutions/wars/whatever. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that having a family emergency plan for break-ins increases the safety of the family. Living in a small townhouse without a backdoor: wife takes kids to interior bathroom for maximum protection; wife calls 911 & reports intrusion; I arm myself & defend at chokepoint. It's not about protecting my television or not wanting to file insurance claims - it's about not knowing the intentions of an intruder. Not knowing if it's a thief, a rapist, or a thrill-killer. In response to your second statement, I don't actually think our revolution was any more special than others' fight for self-determination. I loathe the point of view that some Americans have, that somehow our nation was divinely ordained to bring the "light of democracy" to the world, or whatever bullshit philosophy keeps allowing our government's unjust wars for the last 50 years around the world. I simply happen to be American, and this thread seems to revolve around gun ownership in America, therefore my points pertained to this locale. Though I do find it interesting that the European point of view tends to be simply to run away from danger and hope someone comes to your rescue.
Because running away from danger is the best way to avoid danger and ensure your safety. Handling criminals is the job of police not mine for many good reasons. You might find it interesting, but it actually gives us much lower violent crime rates and lower chance of getting killed than you with all your guns. You seem to miss the self-perpetuating cycle you are in. You need guns to protect yourself from armed criminals, who on the other hand are armed because you are. Criminals are in 99% of cases after your property. Being armed is not needed for that and thus most criminals in Europe are not armed, because that also means that when caught they will be punished rather leniently.
Btw I am not saying that you should not own the gun. In US it might be smart thing short term to own a gun but that is because socially your country is in such a deep trouble and in self-perpetuating cycle of arms race. On the other hand guns are completely unnecessary in more reasonable countries and owning them increases the likelihood of something bad (tm) happening to you or your family.
And that seems to be the disconnect. If someone tells me that owning guns will increase persons safety no matter which country, he is simply wrong. If he limits himself to specific area, he might be correct as far as his short term personal safety is concerned. In the bigger picture though country with low gun ownership is safer all other factors being equal and thus if your goal is safety, you should at least strive for such a state in a long term. If your concern is some stupid fear of fighting dictatorship or some such, well you are a gun nut.
|
On August 29 2014 00:38 heliusx wrote:
It's ridiculous to assume a home invader intends to harm you? Is this some kind of joke? Some of us live in the big boy world where you need to be responsible for your own safety.
No it's based on my experience of living in the man world for over 30 years. Have fun with your paranoia big boy. Just try not to kill anyone over a couple of bucks worth of shit in your house.
|
On August 29 2014 01:27 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:22 r00ty wrote:Afraid people are easier to control and manipulate. Your media did a fantastic job of implanting that fear into your heads. On August 28 2014 23:05 heliusx wrote:
Excuse me Mr. Home Invader with unknown intentions in my home while my family sleep...! My family and I are going to go out the front door ok? Have a nice night! If you have any sense of self preservation you will assume someone breaking into your occupied home intends to harm you. You seem to have some bad experiences and your condition plays a big part, i get that. But honestly: Are you serious? That's 100% rediculous. If someone really wants to harm/kill you, breaking into your house with the risk of facing a firearm is about the dumbest thing you can do. If you want to kill someone would you do that? You can never know what to expect. Only a complete nutter would invade your home just to harm/kill you and you can never ever be 100% safe from people like that. Desperate people, drug addicts, etc do home invasions without knowing what to expect and they're in it for the money. So your solution is to give the benefit of the doubt to the people breaking into my house...yeah no thank you. Just because it is dumb for someone to break into an American home where the owners may have firearms doesn't mean that people don't or won't do it. People do dumb shit all the time. And those desperate people and drug addicts who do it for the money are just that, desperate and drug-addled. Not someone I would trust to break in, take my stereo, and then leave quietly. I don't own a gun and don't live an area where I think I will ever need one, but I don't begrudge the people who do. A home invader is already a criminal by being a home invader, why would we trust them to not harm us or our families? That seems awfully naive.
It is not naive, it is experience of people living in places where such assumptions are statistically true. Basically here by owning a gun you are endangering yourself more than by just assuming criminals are not in it to hurt you and thus not owning a gun. The whole thing seems like a prisoner dilemma. If everyone just assumes the best and gives up guns, everyone (statistically) is better off, on the other hand if not, you are in an arms race and better shooter wins.
|
Buying guns to protect oneself is lying being in a ship with a leak and buying bigger buckets to throw the water out.
Well for some people this seems to be like the perfect solution. Others just laugh at such a solution.
Instead of spending millions on guns and stuff wouldn't it be more logical to spend it on crime reduction and the avoiding of producing criminals in the first place ?
I am angry and shocked when innocent bystanders get shot by weapons or killing sprees and what not, but when I heard the story of the 9 year old killing her shooting instructor I actually laughed because this to me as an Austrian just sounds so unreal and incomprehensible. I had no sympathy with the guy getting shot, I actually found it hilariously stupid, almost "Darwinian" and if the girl would have shot other kids at the range and her parents and what not, I would also not be shocked or horrified but just laugh at this because it is no accident it is just wanton negligence. And not even negligence by laziness or what not but negligence by conviction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
