Can we have a crazy gun thread where we show off our firearms and have the more liberal minded call us neanderthals? I can take some pics, just have to get stuff out of the walk in safe first.
On September 05 2009 02:23 ggrrg wrote: Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence?
People will say that's an argument for locking guns up, not for banning them. The frequency of deaths from traffic accidents is an argument for seatbelts, not for doing away with motor traffic.
If what you are saying is correct (and it sure could be) the main problem with guns is accidents. 4-wheelers are dumb as shit, people get killed on those all the time, but they are not banned. I think it's great that guns don't need to be used too often in self defense. Now we need to have people be more careful with them.
Guns are such a cultural rift. I understand where both sides are coming from, so I don't see the rift doing anything but widening.
Well, Mexico is a pretty nasty place right now... However, in the US it is a different situation. As for FBI statistics, did you know that less than 2% of murders involving firearms in the US happen actually because of self-defence. Actually, leathal accidents involving firearms (e.g. some little kid getting its father's handgun and giving its mate a headshot) contribute for more deaths than self-defence? I will try to find the source i am refering to here. It's been a while since I read this.
This is providing bias by not showing the full picture because what you're not including is that 100s of thousands of potential incidents get deterred by more or less brandishing a weapon i.e. "back off, bozos!"
On September 05 2009 02:39 ShaperofDreams wrote: I'm not really well informed about this topic, but I lean away from gun restriction. If I had an actual house (living in apartment right now) I would want to be able to stop a violent person/people from walking all over me. In many places in the world it's a necessary thing to have (I come from the Balkans).
Also, didn't the rate of knife-use/stabbing go way up in Britain after they restricted guns?
I know that there was a case here in Ohio where a guy woke up to a noise downstairs, he drew his shot gun and loaded up a few buck shots. He started going downstairs when the intruder stepped up to the staircase, the house owner told him to stop and get out but the guy just threatened the owner and took another step at which point the owner lowered his shottie and blasted the guy in the face. He said he was aiming for the chest but because he had the gun at his waist it shot up more, decapitating the man completely. When the police arrived he was questioned and not even arrested, there seemed to be a second guy as well who ran away when he heard the gun shot.
There was another case where a man woke up to get his baby a bottle when he noticed a mans hand in the door window trying to pry it open. He was completely naked and did not have any weapons in the house, the intruders made him get on his knees while they tied his wife up(who was sleeping on the couch). 1 guy watched the owner and another watched his wife while the other 2 went searching through his house. They left with some fake jewelry and left them unharmed, during this the baby was crying the whole time. The owner later said that the day after the incident he went and got a gun, he sleeps with it in his nightstand every night loaded and ready to shoot. During the day it is kept in a case and has a trigger guard on it so his other daughter can not access it.
If you look for specific examples you'll find cases that support any stance on the issue. There have been many cases where private gun ownership has saved the day, and many cases where the exact opposite has occurred.
See how random people are almost accustomed to live under this mess. Theres even a horse running in the first video wtf lol
on a sidenote, in Brazil we dont have the gun laws that the US has, and altho theres still a lots of guns around, theres a consensus that self defense overall = retarded.
That said, most of the time, thiefs and robbers are more inclined into being peacefull, and sometimes annoying in the sense that they socialize with you while robbing you.
On September 01 2009 19:50 BlackJack wrote: I doubt anyone here will immediately open fire on an intruder without giving them some warning to flee. Why would you want to kill somebody in your house? The blood goes everywhere, underneath carpet / tile. You'd have to rip up your floor if you want to clean it completely. Everytime you walk past that area in your house you will not be able to think of anything else but the time you killed a guy and he bled out on your floor and emptied his bowels while choking on his own blood and vomit. Then what do you do as he is wallowing in a pool of his own blood, spraying it all over your furniture and walls, gargling for mercy? Obviously you'd have to shoot him again or risk replacing your sofa and repainting your walls which probably costs more to replace than anything he could have ran off with.
I feel very much reassured that there is virtually no chance of someone breaking into my home here with a gun. With that in mind I'd assess the situation and if it was just one guy I'd probably attack them if they were robbing me, surprising them if possible. You gotta give a warning etc if you're armed and capable of killing them but it's much harder to mistakenly kill someone with your hands. Also it is my belief that robbers don't want to become murderers because the jail sentences are longer, the police more committed and the profit lower. Unless they're afraid you'll be heavily armed they are unlikely to be heavily armed themselves. If I assessed the situation and felt I couldn't prevent them from robbing me (ie 3 guys) then I'd call the police and hide.
Ultimately many can overpower a person and force them to do things against their will, such as losing property. This sucks but it's a reality of life. If you bring knives into the equation many still overpower the few, they just all have knives. Same with guns. It sucks but there really is no advantage from weapon ownership unless the robbers allow you to have that advantage. Obv you can't just undo gun ownership in America but I feel much safer living in a society without them.
On September 05 2009 01:17 Cloud wrote: I would rather get robbed than kill someone. I dont think its comparable the number of murders, kidnappings and rapes with the number of simple robberies. I think paranoid and untrained people with guns or some stupid heroic mentality cause just as much deaths as the actual criminals.
Do you have any studies, statistics, or anything to back this up? It appears that the criminals down in Mexico are doing quite a bit of kidnappings, killings, and other violent crimes. A would you rather, doesn't mean anything unless those "I would rather" change the 2nd Amendment.
Anyways, as I said earlier the facts will be there in the face of this nonsense and people won't bother to read them, or that they will duck their head in the sand and say nah-huh! FBI statistics are pretty irrefutable wouldn't you say?
Yeah there a lot of kidnapping in mexico, killings mostly in the north which are where the drug problems are, anyway i dont think we should legalize guns in mexico, it wouldnt help in any way.
Kidnaps never happen in your home, its always in a car, many times done by the police so a gun at home wont help anyone, and if its about carrying a concealed weapon, that can help to deter crime however there would be an insane amounts of random killings in bars and club by drunken retards.
I believe the quote is: "When seconds count the police are only minutes away." I will never subscribe to the idea that I'll just call the cops, hide, and hope for the best. Americans as a whole don't think like that either thankfully.
Here's a quote from a forum related to firearms and its brilliant:
" Quote: Yemen, I think, and some other Middle Eastern countries pretty much have an "anything goes" policy - full autos, etc. Actually Yemen ceased having that freedom in 2007 under pressure from Europe and the US antis to impose stricter small arms controls. They spun it as a local thing, but it was primarily a result of foreign pressure to eliminate the freedom. Thier per capita murder rate was lower than the US.
Since then they have outlawed most of it, but since its such a strong part of the culture virtually everyone outside the main city ignores it and carries as before. It could be a important change even for Americans as Yemen was once a main location to register vessels for tax purposes and various liberties that went with the flag. So if thier laws are worse, and you are sailing under thier flag, it could effect your freedoms at sea.
Many other nations that in reality have almost anything goes do not officially allow that. For example you can find plenty of videos of tourists firing machineguns, RPGs, and tossing grenades in Cambodia online. But that is not legal according to thier government.
There is many portions of the world where what is done, cultural expected or allowed, and what is officially legal according to the capitol many miles away are completely different. Almost everyone has an AK in the tribal areas of Pakistan, but that is not legal under Pakistani law.
Governments like control, the only real power governments have to fall back on if necessary to preserve thier authority is use of force. That is not as easy or effective against an armed population. So governments around the world seek to disarm everyone except thier own military and LEO forces. This had been the case for thousands of years. It is still the case today. The only time governments want thier average citizens to be armed historically is when the threat of losing thier authority to foreign invaders is greater than the risk from thier own population. Such as England facing the potential Nazi invasion. As soon as that threat is over they want thier subjects to pose as minimal a force as possible. That is why the UN, represented by most national governments in the world can completely agree that reduction of small arms held by citizens across the globe is a strong priority. Regardless of thier disagreements with each other, they all want thier subjects easier to efficiently manage. It is easy to rule millions with tens of thousands if only the tens of thousands have effective arms. Or rule hundreds of millions with only hundreds of thousands. That is why gun control is always at its heart about control. They may exploit crying mothers and what is thought of as the stereotypical anti to achieve that objective, but it is an objective of governments globally.
That said many governments have no problem with thier citizens having some minor arms that would never be effective against the armed men employed by the government. They primarily want the citizens disarmed of effective fighting arms that could be used to resist thier will or authority, not all guns in general. Brazil's laws exemplify this example. They prohibit almost anything that can defeat body armor, including virtually all rifle rounds. But they have little to no problems with people having handguns, or carbines in handgun calibers. No problem with serfs having arms to kill other serfs, as long as they can not legally have arms that pose a threat to the "king's men", or today's version the government's forces. It's not about crime, it's about control. Many governments don't care if thier citizens have shotguns, and are limited to ammunition that poses no threat to body armored LEO or armored transports. They have processes and permits and red tape, but they will allow those things, not because they are less deadly, but because they are easy for the government to still crush with force if necessary. Very few governments though will let thier serfs possess effective modern arms on par with thier own forces. Like the most modern centerfire rifles, or other armaments that pose similar risks to thier troops.
Which of course was the whole original point of the 2nd Amendment in the USA when the founders wrote it. So every locality and every state was a threat to eachother and to the federal government. So everyone was resistant to tyranny from eachother. So the body of the people was always a greater threat than a force which could be raised and used against it. The very opposite of what almost every government wants today, and has wanted since recorded history: absolute centralized power and authority with minimal potential resistance or threats."
The thing is, in Brazil you talk about how its practically a war zone. Without dissecting it though I'll pose simple questions to you: are the police doing their job? are the police corruption free(Within reason)? How much of the population is armed?
Here in America most gun related crimes other than perhaps intercity gang related activities tend to be in gun free zones. I'd have to look more into Brazil, but it sounds at the very least like you're in a situation like America where you don't just have all the law abiding citizens turn in their guns and problem solved.
Lastly, for D10, wicked people don't start doing good just because of laws changing. A rock, a stone, a knife, a bat, a sword, a gun, they're all tools and can be used for evil, its the person that is the problem, not the tool.
Of course Alizee, but I still think that guns suck, we dont need power thro guns, what we need is a free speech society with decent democracy.
Our police is corrupt is innefective yes, but the problem is deeper, and if for some magical reason gunpowder stopped working tomorrow it would still exist.
On the subject of the Government wanting people unarmed so it can control them.
The United States military is not going to be defeated by small arms. If you want to maintain the spirit of the 2nd amendment then you've got to legalise everything, from tanks to nukes. When a citizens militia can pool their resources and buy aircraft then maybe they can overthrow a tyrannical government. At the time it allowed for personal ownership of the most advanced military technology, the fact that it doesn't specify tanks or jets doesn't change the fact that they should be legal in private ownership in the spirit of it. You're not gonna round up a posse and take on the military with your handguns, attempting it would be darwinism in action. Politicians aren't afraid you're going to shoot the police when they come for you after declaring the police state, they're afraid you're going to shoot someone while committing a robbery or shoot your kids then yourself or just leave it where your kids can find it.
On the criminals being able to defy gun control.
In a nation full of guns where guns are readily available and the black market for them is well supplied then yes, gun control just prevents law abiding citizens from being able to have them. Thus your third world examples like Pakistan. In first world countries it's a different situation. Saying it doesn't work in Pakistan therefore it doesn't work completely ignores the fact that it does work in proper countries, such as my own.
Parliamentary figures on gun fatalities for 2005: 185 deaths, including accident, homicide, suicide and undetermined intent.
185 in a population 1/5 of yours, so round that up to a 1000 for the entire United States. That's pretty low.
Also, and I think more important are the figures for police casualties to firearms. Sucks when they get shot doing their duty. Between 1997 and 2003 (the period I found stats on) there were a total of 56 firearms incidents including 0 fatalities, 9 serious injuries and 47 slight injuries (including shock).
This isn't a Government conspiracy to stop you overthrowing it. You're not going to overthrow the Government no matter how well they arm you. And you'd have to be insane to decide the taxes are too high so you're going to start a revolution and declare war on the state, that's kind of an overreaction. The Government doesn't want you to have a gun for the same reason they don't want North Korea to have a nuke. People say stupid things and do stupid things and if given the power to harm they are likely to harm others or themselves.
In fact, the North Korea analogy actually works very well. Kim Jong Il could argue that the international community has nukes and could threaten him with them and he'd have nothing to defend himself and would therefore lose all freedom, just as an individual might argue he has no freedom without a gun if someone with one wants to rob him. And yet we don't see nuclear extortion, just as we don't see soldiers taking their guns home and robbing local shops. The hypothetical threat of extortion by force is purely theoretical in the case of the international community, just as it is in the case of Government oppression in a mature democracy. While the power to extort and to enforce exists in theory it is coupled with the responsibility and maturity not to. Of course, you could argue even a theoretical limitation on personal freedoms is too much but I believe it to be comparable to arguing the international community should give NK nuclear technology.
If you want an even more compelling argument go read some youtube comments and after each one say "I think that person should be allowed to own weapons".
A strange man just peeked in from my back porch. I heard a noise and turned and saw him and he ran away. I live in an apartment building and it is easy to climb from the communal patio onto my porch. What the fuck, if I had been asleep or in a different room he might have come inside and then who knows what. What the fuck, what the fuck.
It freaked me out. I feel so vulnerable here. I've been mugged on the street before, but that's different. What if this dude was just casing the place and he'll come back with his friends? He was skinny as fuck and had on a coat when it's warm outside so he's probably a drug fiend or something what the fuck.
One area, a guy is going around breaking into military housing homes. Wives/children frequently by themselves. Just breaks in the front door early evening, grabs some stuff and leaves.
One house he broke into, the husband was home, as he kicks in the door, the husband happened to be standing near a butcher block. He pulls out a knife and chucks it, killing the guy B&Eing but in the process, catapulting him outside door slightly. Cops come and tell the Navy guy who ended up killing him to drag his corpse inside the doorway before they started processing the scene.
Moral - Kill them in your house, OK. If they end up outside your house during the act that kills them, then you have trouble, though Cops can and do fuzz details sometimes.
Similar story of an old man who shotgunned a invader half-out a window. The cops had to get the old guy to drag the invader inside by himself.
I believe for the minium force rule, you have to be on even footing, so if hes got a knife, put down yo gun and have an oldschool knife fight, cs style.
if you do use more than minimal force, i think all the mitigating factors (eg: some asshole in your house with a weapon) go in your favor anyways. im gonna try to find a story about a man who caught a robber in his home, tied him to a chair, and whipped him all night. my dad told it to me a long time ago, hope its true. apparently he got anger management and community service hours. ill look for a link after work.
well, this is an absolutely counter intuitive as to the construction of modern weapons. Take a firearm, for example. the modern day firearm is made with the intent of maximum "stopping power" in effort to take the target down as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
I think it is silly that some legislation or court ruling tells me that I must seek to do as little damage to the very person that is invading my rights, privacy, well-being, property, and God knows what else, if I do indeed seek to stop them.
what I *hope* the interpretation is along the lines of the post above me. ie if you catch someone otherwise breaking and entering, with a possible intent to harm, incapacitating them, and unlawfully restraining them against their will for interrogation, torture, etc. But even then, I would go light on you if you caught someone in your home.
Just talked to my room mate, we are going to install a light wire fence as a deterrent. I'm also going to cut some 2x4's to block the sliding patio doors from being forced open.
EPT
