You opinion on gun ownership?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT
 

farson135:
The problem is that I do not see the ownership of explosives as a direct threat to safety. I do see the police arresting people for perfectly legal activities as being a threat to society.

But that's a question of degrees, not principle. Obviously I'd agree with that claim, I'd probably simply disagree on what I'd consider or want considered "perfectly legal activities".

You made the assumption that this would happen in a populated area. If you do this in a populated area, even without explosives laws, you WILL get prosecuted for a few dozen ordinance violations.

So there would be regulations regarding the usage of explosives regardless, they'd simply fall under a different name-tag. I'd probably disagree with the extent of those regulations though.

If you are out in the middle of the country (as I was) and you kill/injure yourself then it is your own damn fault. If something had gone wrong and I had blown off my own leg that would be my fault and I sure as hell would not call on the government for more regulations.

Just because you're not in the middle of a densely populated city doesn't mean you might not end up hurting somebody else. Eh, in the outback where nobody else is around at all, nobody would even notice what you're doing anyway, so the policy wouldn't be enforcable despite being written into law. But the moment there are any other people around, you're endangering those people and I don't think anybody but folks after going through some sort of training and licensing should have the right to make such decisions if they cannot be considered capable of making them with any sort of educated sense.

People have the ability to be extremely stupid but if their stupidity only hurts them then go for it. As my former medic used to say "I don't treat stupid".

Again, while I may make the assumption that other people could be around (which is always a risk and something you have to take into account when making such evaluations in my opinion), you simply make the opposite assumption that nobody else would be around that you might possibly hurt besides yourself. What did your medic have to say about endangering civilians that might be in the area of your operations?

farson135:

-snip-

Uhh that seems like one nasty case. Excuse me, but I do need to ponder a little and form a coherent opinion before I have anything to say about it.

Not G. Ivingname:
Sadly, no all of us live in caste doctorine states. I live in a "must attempt to flee" state (and a "may issue" concealed carry state, I would be screwed if I was attacked while walking down the street). While yes, in a lot of situtations fleeing is better, having the option of standing and fighting is sometimes for the best (you don't know if they can catch you, your not sure what is the best exit to flee out of, or you can protect the lives of other people.

Unfortunately the fact that old people, disabled people, and unfit people sometimes get attacked is lost on some law makers. I have a knee injury that flares up from time to time and in my worst state I can walk fine but I cannot imagine trying to run any distance. Luckily I live in a state with both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws. Plus it is a will issue CHL state.

Sorry, try moving to a free state at some point.

Skeleon:
But that's a question of degrees, not principle. Obviously I'd agree with that claim, I'd probably simply disagree on what I'd consider or want considered "perfectly legal activities".

In this case I was referencing the man who was arrested for having reloading supplies in his home.

So there would be regulations regarding the usage of explosives regardless, they'd simply fall under a different name-tag. I'd probably disagree with the extent of those regulations though.

For example, using an explosive in a residential neighborhood will likely result in a fine for disturbing the peace or noise violations, or property damage, etc.

Just because you're not in the middle of a densely populated city doesn't mean you might not end up hurting somebody else. Eh, in the outback where nobody else is around at all, nobody would even notice what you're doing anyway, so the policy wouldn't be enforcable despite being written into law.

The current policy is not enforceable. Do you think that it was legal for me to build that claymore? BTW- I was not punished and the statute of limitations has already expired.

But the moment there are any other people around, you're endangering those people and I don't think anybody but folks after going through some sort of training and licensing should have the right to make such decisions if they cannot be considered capable of making them with any sort of educated sense.

Personally I think bike riders are a menace to society. Here in Austin bike riding is commonplace and (in case you do not know) Austin is on the edge of the hill country. So there are huge hills all over the place. There is this one particular hill that I have to walk by to get to work that people just fly down (cars are not allowed on that street). Every day people are injured by bikes in this city because the riders do not know what they are doing. You see training is a good idea for everything but the fact is that it is impractical. I would rather see a few guys blow off their fingers than see another reloader hauled off to jail. Although maybe that is because I myself am a reloader.

Again, while I may make the assumption that other people could be around (which is always a risk and something you have to take into account when making such evaluations in my opinion), you simply make the opposite assumption that nobody else would be around that you might possibly hurt besides yourself.

If there was someone on my land then I would have been well within my rights to shoot them for trespassing. So that is not really a factor. But to answer your question directly, if you injure a person you will pay for it. It is not like getting rid of those laws would make it legal for you to injure innocent people.

What did your medic have to say about endangering civilians that might be in the area of your operations?

She would have slapped me and told me I was an idiot.

farson135:
If there was someone on my land then I would have been well within my rights to shoot them for trespassing.

Sigh. I was going to respond in detail but then I came to this sentence. When I read something like this I realize that we could basically be living on different planets considering how much our culture and views on even the most basic things differ. Commensurability? Nevermind.

Skeleon:

farson135:
If there was someone on my land then I would have been well within my rights to shoot them for trespassing.

Sigh. I was going to respond in detail but then I came to this sentence. When I read something like this I realize that we could basically be living on different planets considering how much our culture and views on even the most basic things differ. Commensurability? Nevermind.

True. I never expected to convince you but I was hoping to better understand your point of view. Hopefully now we both understand each other a little better. True peace will only come when people stop trying to separate each other into groups and factions and instead acknowledge the basic principle that we are all human.

farson135:
True peace will only come when people stop trying to separate each other into groups and factions

...Typed the guy who in his previous post pledged to commit murder upon any innocent individual who happened to stroll onto a patch of dirt farson may have happened to own...

Blablahb:

farson135:
True peace will only come when people stop trying to separate each other into groups and factions

...Typed the guy who in his previous post pledged to commit murder upon any innocent individual who happened to stroll onto a patch of dirt farson may have happened to own...

Nice reading comprehension skills you have there. I said quote- "If there was someone on my land then I would have been well within my rights to shoot them for trespassing. Considering the state of Texas has the Castle Doctrine I do have the right to kill anyone who trespasses on my property. Doesn't mean I will just that I could.

BTW how is your quest for world peace going your holiness? After all you have stated multiple times how we Americans don't care about human life and we are lesser beings than you are and the fact that you are here talking to this lowly pleb must mean that you are nearing the final solution for world peace. Please don't keep us in suspense any longer.

Kid people like you who insist their superiority over others are one of the main reasons this world is so screwed up.

tsb247:

reonhato:

farson135:

HE escalated the situation? What kind of bullshit is that? They attacked him and were attempting to use deadly force against him. He responded with an equal level of force.

tell me, when did they attempt to use deadly force against him. the fact that they ran as soon as he fired pretty much shows the guns were purely for intimidation and they had no intent to use them. honestly, if the guy who fired had actually hit and killed one of those guys i would really hope he would have gone to jail. no where in that video was there even close to any evidence to show they had intent to harm the man. by choosing to defend himself with a firearm to save being robbed, of items that are replaceable, he put not only his own life in danger, he put the 4 burglars lives in danger as well as those of his neighbours. what would have happened if one of the stray bullets hit a kid in the house across the road, my guess would be gun supporters would just say it was an unfortunate accident.

i bet you think the guy defending himself was brave, showed courage, was being a man. i think if he wanted to be brave, show courage and be a man he would have given the men what they wanted and drastically reduced the risk of death to himself, the burglars and his neighbours.

There are a LOT of problems with what you wrote here.

The fact that they ran as soon as he fired pretty much shows the guns were purely for intimidation and they had no intent to use them.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. These assumptions, if made while actually in a situation like this can, and probably will, get one killed.

It's far more likely that they ran because they had both, a.) lost the element of surprise, and b.) know that gunshots generally attract police. It also doesn't help that the man they were trying to rob and/or murder was firing at them from a covered position with an AR-15 (quite accurately I might add).

To assume that they would not have harmed the homeowner, walked in, taken what they wanted, and simply left is a foolish assumption at best. If four armed men tried to rush into your home would you make the assumtion that they were just stopping by for tea and biscuits? The four criminals were likely that heavily armed (all 4 were armed) because they intended to use those weapons if they needed to.

Rule #1: Never trust your life to someone who has both the will and/or the motive to take it.

The homeowner made the correct assumption and saw four armed men trying to rush into his home for what it is; an armed assault on his property and a possible attempt on his life. He then acted accordingly.

Honestly, if the guy who fired had actually hit and killed one of those guys i would really hope he would have gone to jail. no where in that video was there even close to any evidence to show they had intent to harm the man.

Let me get this straight...

You don't see four armed criminals, one carrying an AR-15, attempting to charge into a man's home without his permission as evidence that they wanted to harm him? Let's be honest here. The only thing we can assume is that they wanted to harm him. Why else would they be so heavily armed in the first place?

Again, you make the foolish assumption that none of those men would use those weapons. The fact they were trying to invade a man's home and doing so while heavily armed speaks volumes about their intent. How can one assume that they did not intend any harm? They were armed to the teeth and attempting to storm a man's garage!

by choosing to defend himself with a firearm to save being robbed, of items that are replaceable, he put not only his own life in danger, he put the 4 burglars lives in danger as well as those of his neighbours.

I find your way of thinking sickening. Aagin, you are making the assumption that they only wanted to rob him and intended no harm whatsoever. NOWHERE was there ever any indication of that. All we saw was four armed criminals attempting to enter a man's home by force. All that we can conclude from watching that video is that they wanted to do him harm! We simply aren't presented with evidence of anything else!

I suppose I should ask this question as well. If put in that same situation, whose life would you be concerned with? Would it be your life or those of your attackers?

You also claim this man put his neighbor's lives in danger. How would the four armed criminals do any more to ensure their safety than the homeowner did? You can be sure they would have shown less concern, and probably did not care at all seeing as they were armed and entering a man's home by force. Even a police officer can hit an innocent at times. You are splitting hairs with that, "what if there was a kid hit in the house across the street," scenario. Both parties in this scenario could have just as easily hit an innocent. I find it interesting (and very sad) that you would find the man defending his more more at fault for injuring an innocent than the criminals in question. I should also point out that no innocents were harmed when this event took place.

I bet you think the guy defending himself was brave, showed courage, was being a man. i think if he wanted to be brave, show courage and be a man he would have given the men what they wanted and drastically reduced the risk of death to himself, the burglars and his neighbours.

How is giving in to violent criminals being brave? Why should he have let them in and allowed them to take whatever they wanted? How is it brave to make oneself a victim? It takes far more courage to stand up and defend one's life than to just give in and allow oneself to be taken advantage of.

In short, you are saying that the brave thing would be to not put up any resistance and to allow yourself to be at the mercy of your assailant(s). You are saying that it is far better to allow your life to rest in the hands of someone who probably doesn't care whether or not you live or die, and you are foolish enough to make the assumption that they care at all what happens to you.

That's not bravery, that is stupidity.

I know I have asked this already, but I will ask again. Would you let your life rest in the hands of the four armed criminals in the video?

and this is exactly what is wrong with american thinking. you call them violent criminals... they didnt act violent, they certainly were trying for intimidating but there is absolutely no proof they were violent. it is not brave to act violently at the risk of others to save your own possessions.

you ask would i let my life rest in the criminals hands, of course i would, because my country has actually educated people on the correct response in these types of situations. if 4 strangers rock up to my house, i have done nothing at all to warrant them killing me and have no reason to believe they are there to kill me. statistically the chances of being murder by random by a complete stranger is astronomical, it is far more likely they are just going to rob me. i have 2 choices, let them rob me with the astronomical chance they might kill me, or fight back drastically increasing the likelihood someone will die.

the reason i say i would hope the guy would have gone to jail has already been explained. self defense is only allowed equal force, lethal in a very large majority of cases is not equal. unfortunately much of america has some sort of castle doctrine, which is basically a free license to kill someone who really is not a deadly threat

by fighting back this man has drastically increased the likelihood of not only himself but others being injured or killed. this is contradictory to the whole self defense thing, and a big argument for gun control supporters. guns escalate violence and turn it lethal, this is not opinion this is fact. there is a reason most other developed nations will teach citizens to not fight against criminals.

america is wrong. its that simple. (actually its really only some of america, any where else there would probably be enough support to warrant implementing stricter gun control, unfortunately though the NRA has way to much influence). most of the developed world figured out guns in the hands of untrained civilians does far more harm than good decades ago. you guys are only just catching up with health care, unfortunately its probably going to be another 4 or 5 decades before you catch up with guns

reonhato:
the reason i say i would hope the guy would have gone to jail has already been explained. self defense is only allowed equal force, lethal in a very large majority of cases is not equal. unfortunately much of america has some sort of castle doctrine, which is basically a free license to kill someone who really is not a deadly threat

Not to be rude, but that's not really what Castle Doctrine is. Castle doctrine is the idea that you have no "duty to retreat" in any private place you are lawfully allowed to be, such as your own home. If someone throws up their hands, falls on the ground with the hands on their head, or runs away, you're not permitted to shoot them. And you shouldn't be.

EDIT: Not trying to be confrontational, just trying to explain that the castle doctrine isn't what some people think it is.

reonhato:
and this is exactly what is wrong with american thinking. you call them violent criminals... they didnt act violent, they certainly were trying for intimidating but there is absolutely no proof they were violent. it is not brave to act violently at the risk of others to save your own possessions.

So my owning a firearm is dangerous but these criminals running towards a person with firearms raised is not dangerous at all? You need to work on this little thing called consistency.

unfortunately much of america has some sort of castle doctrine, which is basically a free license to kill someone who really is not a deadly threat

You have no idea what the Castle Doctrine is. Basically all it does is allow you to defend your home (home at times being extended to anywhere you happen to occupy including a car) with an equal level of force.

by fighting back this man has drastically increased the likelihood of not only himself but others being injured or killed. this is contradictory to the whole self defense thing, and a big argument for gun control supporters. guns escalate violence and turn it lethal, this is not opinion this is fact. there is a reason most other developed nations will teach citizens to not fight against criminals.

Prove it.

america is wrong. its that simple. (actually its really only some of america, any where else there would probably be enough support to warrant implementing stricter gun control, unfortunately though the NRA has way to much influence).

That or the more likely thing is that people can think for themselves and the majority has decided that you are wrong. The NRA is powerful because of its membership base of 4.3 million people. The largest single-issue anti-gun organization in this country is the Brady Campaign and their membership base is less than 28,000 (they stopped publishing their numbers after they lost 4,000 members in one year).

most of the developed world figured out guns in the hands of untrained civilians does far more harm than good decades ago. you guys are only just catching up with health care, unfortunately its probably going to be another 4 or 5 decades before you catch up with guns

Actually it looks more like in a few decade y'all will be catching up with us. Canada is the first let us see who follows.

the reason i say i would hope the guy would have gone to jail has already been explained. self defense is only allowed equal force, lethal in a very large majority of cases is not equal.

I have been alluding to this for awhile and I really did not want to talk about it (bad memories) but I feel the need to bring it up. A friend of mine was walking down the street when she noticed a car was slowly driving behind her. She did not think much of it (unfortunately at the time she was another sheep) and kept walking. The car got closer, a man jumped out and grabbed her, he pulled her into the car and slammed the door on her hand. She was kidnapped and for the next three days they gang raped her and beat her. When they were finished they "cleaned her", i.e. they scrubbed all the evidence off her, then they dumped her on the side of a road. I knew her before the incident and she was a strong, beautiful woman. After the incident she spend two years trying to recover physically (her hand was only the first thing they broke) but the mental scars lasted far longer. I remember a few months after the incident we were talking about nothing in particular and she just started sobbing. I grabbed her and held her for over 2 hours while she cried, screamed, and torn at my skin. It still haunts me to this day. And god damn you think that those sorry sons of bitches did not deserve to die? That instead of going through that torture if she was able to kill them that SHE should have been thrown in jail? Those bastards have not been caught and I doubt they ever will be but she will have to live with it but you think that she should have just let it happen. YOU SICK MOTHERFUCKER. I am not a religious person and I do not know if there is a hell but for what they did I did fall to my knees and pray that they receive the torture they gave tenfold. YOU THINK THAT HER LIFE IS WORTH LESS THAT THOSE GOD DAMN RAPISTS? Go fuck yourself you sorry son of a bitch.

farson135:
-snip=

Two things:

1) Here's a quote I'm rather fond of:

"The "Firearms lobby," as you call it, always wins because it IS the people. The Brady Campaign to ban guns and distribute butterflie¬s and unicorns has less than 28K members. The NRA, on the other hand, has over 4.3 MILLION. Put another way, for every 1 of you flowerchil¬dren that wants to make guns illegal, there are over 150 of us people with guns who respectful¬ly disagree with your nonsense."

2) You may want to change the second part of your statement a bit. It may get you mod wrath. Just a friendly suggestion. Not that I disagree with you (I don't)

CM156:

Two things:

1) Here's a quote I'm rather fond of:

"The "Firearms lobby," as you call it, always wins because it IS the people. The Brady Campaign to ban guns and distribute butterflie¬s and unicorns has less than 28K members. The NRA, on the other hand, has over 4.3 MILLION. Put another way, for every 1 of you flowerchil¬dren that wants to make guns illegal, there are over 150 of us people with guns who respectful¬ly disagree with your nonsense."

I don't think all 150 of those people disagree respectfully.

Now, I have no idea who said that, but they might want to know that the disagreement is often not respectful.

farson135:

reonhato:
and this is exactly what is wrong with american thinking. you call them violent criminals... they didnt act violent, they certainly were trying for intimidating but there is absolutely no proof they were violent. it is not brave to act violently at the risk of others to save your own possessions.

So my owning a firearm is dangerous but these criminals running towards a person with firearms raised is not dangerous at all? You need to work on this little thing called consistency.

unfortunately much of america has some sort of castle doctrine, which is basically a free license to kill someone who really is not a deadly threat

You have no idea what the Castle Doctrine is. Basically all it does is allow you to defend your home (home at times being extended to anywhere you happen to occupy including a car) with an equal level of force.

by fighting back this man has drastically increased the likelihood of not only himself but others being injured or killed. this is contradictory to the whole self defense thing, and a big argument for gun control supporters. guns escalate violence and turn it lethal, this is not opinion this is fact. there is a reason most other developed nations will teach citizens to not fight against criminals.

Prove it.

america is wrong. its that simple. (actually its really only some of america, any where else there would probably be enough support to warrant implementing stricter gun control, unfortunately though the NRA has way to much influence).

That or the more likely thing is that people can think for themselves and the majority has decided that you are wrong. The NRA is powerful because of its membership base of 4.3 million people. The largest single-issue anti-gun organization in this country is the Brady Campaign and their membership base is less than 28,000 (they stopped publishing their numbers after they lost 4,000 members in one year).

most of the developed world figured out guns in the hands of untrained civilians does far more harm than good decades ago. you guys are only just catching up with health care, unfortunately its probably going to be another 4 or 5 decades before you catch up with guns

Actually it looks more like in a few decade y'all will be catching up with us. Canada is the first let us see who follows.

the reason i say i would hope the guy would have gone to jail has already been explained. self defense is only allowed equal force, lethal in a very large majority of cases is not equal.

I have been alluding to this for awhile and I really did not want to talk about it (bad memories) but I feel the need to bring it up. A friend of mine was walking down the street when she noticed a car was slowly driving behind her. She did not think much of it (unfortunately at the time she was another sheep) and kept walking. The car got closer, a man jumped out and grabbed her, he pulled her into the car and slammed the door on her hand. She was kidnapped and for the next three days they gang raped her and beat her. When they were finished they "cleaned her", i.e. they scrubbed all the evidence off her, then they dumped her on the side of a road. I knew her before the incident and she was a strong, beautiful woman. After the incident she spend two years trying to recover physically (her hand was only the first thing they broke) but the mental scars lasted far longer. I remember a few months after the incident we were talking about nothing in particular and she just started sobbing. I grabbed her and held her for over 2 hours while she cried, screamed, and torn at my skin. It still haunts me to this day. And god damn you think that those sorry sons of bitches did not deserve to die? That instead of going through that torture if she was able to kill them that SHE should have been thrown in jail? Those bastards have not been caught and I doubt they ever will be but she will have to live with it but you think that she should have just let it happen. YOU SICK MOTHERFUCKER. I am not a religious person and I do not know if there is a hell but for what they did I did fall to my knees and pray that they receive the torture they gave tenfold. YOU THINK THAT HER LIFE IS WORTH LESS THAT THOSE GOD DAMN RAPISTS? Go fuck yourself you sorry son of a bitch.

rape is a different story to robbery, but even then i still think killing someone is an extreme reaction. sure she should have tried to escape and probably did. i never said her life is worth less, it is however equal. a life is a life, the homeless guy on the corner who steals bread just to survive has just as much right to live as the president. a guy who kills a baby, no matter how horrible an act still has the right to live. you cannot amend for your evil acts if you are dead.

killing someone is the ultimate crime, it cannot be undone. nobody, no matter how evil deserves to die against their will.

you try and make the claim that i think your friends life is worth less then the rapists. apart from being false i can claim that you certainly think some peoples lives are worth less. you support firearms, you probably support the death penalty. you would rather have the false sense of security by owning a gun and have revenge on criminals then actually think about the over all picture. you think of yourselves first and not the over all picture.

reonhato:
you support firearms, you probably support the death penalty.

Whoa whoa whoooooa. I generally agree with you in this thread, but this is a bit of a slippery slope to jump from. They're separate issues.

Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence. If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

As for criminals, the idea that they deserve to die for their crimes is unjust. The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year). The US also has the largest prison population by far. Why is it then that the US also has a high recidivism rate?

The answer is simple, you do not get rid of criminals by punishing them. Criminal behaviour has a strong psychological link and as such the threat of punishment is not a deterrent. You do not lower crime rates by increasing punishments, you lower crime rates be rehabilitating criminals so they do not re-offend.

pyrate:
Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence. If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

You'll be pleased to know, then, that that's standard teaching in CCW courses, at least in Missouri. That you warn them and tell them to leave before you shoot.

reonhato:
rape is a different story to robbery, but even then i still think killing someone is an extreme reaction.

If saw what they did to her and you said death was not deserved then you are inhuman. I am against the death penalty but that level of evil deserves no moderation.

sure she should have tried to escape and probably did.

She did and failed.

i never said her life is worth less, it is however equal. a life is a life, the homeless guy on the corner who steals bread just to survive has just as much right to live as the president. a guy who kills a baby, no matter how horrible an act still has the right to live. you cannot amend for your evil acts if you are dead.

There is no amendment and there is no atonement for what they did. And apparently you do think her life is worth less than theirs because for those few years she was living a shallow existence while those men where likely living free. The fact that her life was destroyed means nothing in comparison to their lives. She only pulled herself out of it because she was so strong and because she had the help of her friends.

killing someone is the ultimate crime, it cannot be undone. nobody, no matter how evil deserves to die against their will.

So you are saying that what she when through is worth less than their lives? The idea of atonement is that you give back an equal payment to what you took. What can they give to her that is equal to a life time of nightmares and the loss of her innocence?

you try and make the claim that i think your friends life is worth less then the rapists. apart from being false i can claim that you certainly think some peoples lives are worth less. you support firearms, you probably support the death penalty.

All humans begin with the same worth but the second you decide you can take or destroy the life of another for fun, for pleasure, or just for the hell of it you no longer have the right to live. I have heard the hypothetical question about whether you would smother a baby Hitler in the crib. The answer is no, but would I have stood with von Stauffenburg or Maurice Bavaud? Yes.

you would rather have the false sense of security by owning a gun and have revenge on criminals then actually think about the over all picture. you think of yourselves first and not the over all picture.

A false sense of security. Revenge. Selfishness.

She lived in a false sense of security. She though much like you, that the world would not harm her, that the world was a just place. She was wrong.

I do not want revenge. I want what happened to her to be taken back. She was a naive fool but no one should have to go through what she went through. They deserve death and the fiery pits of hell. I cannot be sure of the second but the first will come. I would rather them not live a long and pleasant life.

I pray to all deities that you do not ever have to witness what I saw. If you did you would never be able to stand before me and say that no one has the right to take the life of another. That level of evil is unconceivable to a naive fool like you.

Boy, I did not go to her, she came to me and asked me to help her. She said that she had never felt so hopeless and so weak and she never wanted that to happen again. She begged me to teach her how to defend herself and how to prevent that from happening again. She told me she would rather die than ever go through that again. I went through it. Over time she regained her sense of power and her confidence. Before this I would hate opening doors around her because she would flinch and curl up a little. Now she knows both how to fight and how to not fight. She carries a gun every day and practices with it more than I do. She is a proud markswoman and a confident woman. Despite all of that you still want to take her ability to defend herself. She may have some hand to hand combat training but she will never be as strong as a man. If this ever happens again she will fight and I pray that she has all the tools she needs to do the job. Apparently you think otherwise.

pyrate:
Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

If a person is attacking you they are a threat. The guy next door with a gun is not a threat unless he decides to attack me.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence.

No duh. However (if you are referring to the video) the fact that they were charging into the man's home is a clear indication of a threat. I mean my god do they have to fix bayonets before y'all believe they were attacking him?

If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

Have you ever heard of the Tueller Drill? Basically in the time it takes for a person to draw and fire 3 shots a person can cover 21 feet. I want you to try rehearsing the Tueller Drill but try calling out first. See how many shots you get off. Of course the Tueller Drill is an anachronism but you get the point.

As for criminals, the idea that they deserve to die for their crimes is unjust.

The idea that they all deserve to die for their crimes is unjust. As I have said If my friend had had a gun on her I would have supported her killing those rapists.

The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year).

I will need to see a statistic on that because the last available statistic shows that Japan executed 9 people while the US executed 42 (BTW China executed 470).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

The US also has the largest prison population by far. Why is it then that the US also has a high recidivism rate?

Because we concentrate on holding prisoners rather than reforming them.

The answer is simple, you do not get rid of criminals by punishing them. Criminal behaviour has a strong psychological link and as such the threat of punishment is not a deterrent. You do not lower crime rates by increasing punishments, you lower crime rates be rehabilitating criminals so they do not re-offend.

True. Jamaica proved that when they provided life imprisonment for all gun crimes yet gun crime skyrocketed.

farson135:

pyrate:

The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year).

I will need to see a statistic on that because the last available statistic shows that Japan executed 9 people while the US executed 42 (BTW China executed 470).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

Since 2000 Japan has executed 47 people, just over 4 per year. All but three of those were for cases of multiple homicide. In the same period of time the US has executed 679 people, a majority for a single case of homicide.

So out of 726 executions in the developed world the us accounted for 93.5% of them. Not quite 99%. Japan had a period in 2007 and 2008 where they went on a execution spree, nearly half of the executions in the last decade are from those 2 years.

pyrate:

farson135:

pyrate:

The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year).

I will need to see a statistic on that because the last available statistic shows that Japan executed 9 people while the US executed 42 (BTW China executed 470).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

Since 2000 Japan has executed 47 people, just over 4 per year. All but three of those were for cases of multiple homicide. In the same period of time the US has executed 679 people, a majority for a single case of homicide.

So out of 726 executions in the developed world the us accounted for 93.5% of them. Not quite 99%. Japan had a period in 2007 and 2008 where they went on a execution spree, nearly half of the executions in the last decade are from those 2 years.

OK, but I would like to know why you do not include China in the "developed world".

farson135:

pyrate:

farson135:

I will need to see a statistic on that because the last available statistic shows that Japan executed 9 people while the US executed 42 (BTW China executed 470).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

Since 2000 Japan has executed 47 people, just over 4 per year. All but three of those were for cases of multiple homicide. In the same period of time the US has executed 679 people, a majority for a single case of homicide.

So out of 726 executions in the developed world the us accounted for 93.5% of them. Not quite 99%. Japan had a period in 2007 and 2008 where they went on a execution spree, nearly half of the executions in the last decade are from those 2 years.

OK, but I would like to know why you do not include China in the "developed world".

Simple, China is not part of the developed world, they are part of the developing world. There is no actual official designation of developed and developing countries and the term is a bit misleading as countries do not have to be developing to be put into the category.

The way it is measured is different depending on who does it, but the general rule of thumb is an advanced economy and good standard of living. Data from 2010 has China with a GNI per capita of $7570 and a HDI rating of 0.687. The countries that are considered "developed" have high incomes (GNI per capita over $12,276) and a high level of Human Development (top 25%, a rating of around 0.800). China has quite some way to go before they begin to approach the 'developed world'.

There is one thing that all the methods of designating developed and developing countries have in common. None of them include China as a developed country.

Although I shouldn't be shocked anymore by this naive "act harmless and you won't be harmed" mentality, it still unnerves me. Although my middle class upbringing was in an liberal area with little crime I never questioned what I would later call the right to self defense.If your life belongs to you, then it logically follows that you have a right to protect it.

To say that you can't shoot a criminal when he threatens you with a deadly weapon at close range is to favor the well being and survival of the criminal. I can only see it as madness to favor a criminals safety over that of his target. This pro criminal legal arrangement can only make crime worse than what it would be otherwise.

Anti gun/self defense people say that because the robber,rapist,thug doesn't usually kill his target then you are obligated to comply with him. This creates an environment that gives every benefit of the doubt to the criminal and none to an innocent victim. If the intended victim were to hurt or even kill a criminal he is demonized. But what do you accomplish by this demonization and anti self defense policy. You only protect those who inflict suffering on innocents. You make it so that the innocent are in fear of not only their lives but also their freedom for using force to defend themselves, while the criminals can feel safer. How can you think this is logical? Is it that the mere concept of the possibility of rehabilitating the criminal makes you so happy that self defense comes in at a distant second place?

If your only "benchmark" of success for this policy is that your country has a lower murder rate than America(apples to oranges comparison) I can only shake my head.

It would be like an undernourished drug addict saying that being a drug addict is good because hes not fat.

JRslinger:

To say that you can't shoot a criminal when he threatens you with a deadly weapon at close range ...

Now where has anyone said that? Quote please.

Putting aside the issue of whether or not you're even in a position to shoot if that actually happens, but, for the sake of the argument. Where has anyone ever said that?

Vegosiux:

JRslinger:

To say that you can't shoot a criminal when he threatens you with a deadly weapon at close range ...

Now where has anyone said that? Quote please.

Putting aside the issue of whether or not you're even in a position to shoot if that actually happens, but, for the sake of the argument. Where has anyone ever said that?

well ive pretty much said it but it depends on your definition of threatening. just holding a gun is not reason to believe they are going to use it. ive said it before and il say it again, statistically the chances of a complete strange not only robbing you at gunpoint, but then also murdering you is just astronomical, it does happen but very rarely. the chance of being killed increases when you use a gun in self defense, because you are escalating the situation

i am not saying you do not have the right to defend yourself, im saying using deadly force to do so should be illegal in almost all cases. there are plenty of self defense options that do not incluse using a firearm

reonhato:
well ive pretty much said it but it depends on your definition of threatening. just holding a gun is not reason to believe they are going to use it.

Feel free to risk your life. I on the other hand prefer not to take the chance.

the chance of being killed increases when you use a gun in self defense, because you are escalating the situation

Bullshit. Instead of just stating it why don't you prove it.

i am not saying you do not have the right to defend yourself, im saying using deadly force to do so should be illegal in almost all cases. there are plenty of self defense options that do not incluse using a firearm

Really. Why don't you tell me what the proper self defense practice is for an asthmatic girl who is 5.4' and 110 pounds (in other words she is about 20 pounds under the ideal weight). A friend of mine who runs a self defense course is trying to figure out the best self defense solution for her and in the short term I am have a hell of a time figuring out anything but a gun. Given how much you talk about alternative forms of self defense you must be better qualified than either of us. Feel free to respond but I somehow doubt you will.

Look, I work in the self defense industry. I am trained in hand-to-hand combat, battlefield medicine, survival, escape and evasion, distance marksmanship, urban combat, and plenty more. I am not an expert but the fact is that you do not seem to comprehend that you are talking to someone who knows what they are talking about. Try actually providing something. If you have an idea that I can use for that girl then give it. Otherwise you are proving that you have no idea what you are talking about and therefore you should STOP. If you do not know what you are talking about then just stop talking.

JRslinger:
Although I shouldn't be shocked anymore by this naive "act harmless and you won't be harmed" mentality, it still unnerves me. Although my middle class upbringing was in an liberal area with little crime I never questioned what I would later call the right to self defense.If your life belongs to you, then it logically follows that you have a right to protect it.

To say that you can't shoot a criminal when he threatens you with a deadly weapon at close range is to favor the well being and survival of the criminal. I can only see it as madness to favor a criminals safety over that of his target. This pro criminal legal arrangement can only make crime worse than what it would be otherwise.

Anti gun/self defense people say that because the robber,rapist,thug doesn't usually kill his target then you are obligated to comply with him. This creates an environment that gives every benefit of the doubt to the criminal and none to an innocent victim. If the intended victim were to hurt or even kill a criminal he is demonized. But what do you accomplish by this demonization and anti self defense policy. You only protect those who inflict suffering on innocents. You make it so that the innocent are in fear of not only their lives but also their freedom for using force to defend themselves, while the criminals can feel safer. How can you think this is logical? Is it that the mere concept of the possibility of rehabilitating the criminal makes you so happy that self defense comes in at a distant second place?

If your only "benchmark" of success for this policy is that your country has a lower murder rate than America(apples to oranges comparison) I can only shake my head.

It would be like an undernourished drug addict saying that being a drug addict is good because hes not fat.

So you think there is nothing wrong with killing someone because they broke in to steal a DVD player? I have said it before and I will say it again, no one breaks into a complete strangers house to kill them. It makes zero sense. If someone plans to kill you, the last thing they are going to do is attack you in a location where you have access to a weapon, are the only one that has knowledge of the layout and have a warning that trouble is coming.

Lets put some things in perspective. There are around 400 burglary related homicides each year. Around 30% of the time someone is home at the time of a burglary. 7% of cases involve violence, but in 65% of those cases the burglar is known to the victim (once again reiterating the fact that you are far more likely to be harmed by someone you know then a stranger). Of those subjected to violence, 89% were either not injured or only suffered minor wounds. This means that in any given year the chance of being burgled while home is less than 1%. The chance of being killed during one of these burglaries is 0.004%. When you combined them, the chance of being murdered during a burglary is 0.0004%. This is in the same range as being struck by lightning. You are more likely to be killed by accidental shooting then by a home invader and significantly more likely to be killed or kill a family member with your own gun.

A bit of irony, 100,000 firearms are stolen during burglaries in a year. In other words the guns that people buy to protect themselves are a big reason behind why they feel they need a gun to protect themselves.

pyrate:
So you think there is nothing wrong with killing someone because they broke in to steal a DVD player?

I said it earlier and I will say it again, how exactly are you supposed to know? My friend at first though those guys were trying to rob her but instead they robbed her, beat her, and gang raped her.

I have said it before and I will say it again, no one breaks into a complete strangers house to kill them. It makes zero sense. If someone plans to kill you, the last thing they are going to do is attack you in a location where you have access to a weapon, are the only one that has knowledge of the layout and have a warning that trouble is coming.

Sorry but it happens- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Night_Stalker

but in 65% of those cases the burglar is known to the victim (once again reiterating the fact that you are far more likely to be harmed by someone you know then a stranger).

Question, what does "known" mean? The answer is that they at some point saw each other. When that statistic was made they included (for example) a man who worked at a convenience store who saw the victim once. They also include people who know family members or friends of the victims. In other words that study is not really reliable.

A bit of irony, 100,000 firearms are stolen during burglaries in a year. In other words the guns that people buy to protect themselves are a big reason behind why they feel they need a gun to protect themselves.

So you are trying to argue that most of the guns in the hands of criminals are not being sold at pawn shops but instead are being used by them? I would love to see a statistic on that. BTW if any potential criminals steal my guns they had better lose them before the police find them because they have all been tagged and their serial numbers are recorded.

farson135:

So you are trying to argue that most of the guns in the hands of criminals are not being sold at pawn shops but instead are being used by them? I would love to see a statistic on that. BTW if any potential criminals steal my guns they had better lose them before the police find them because they have all been tagged and their serial numbers are recorded.

Well, if they steal your guns, they're not what I'd call potential criminals.

One might also assume hardened, lifestyle criminals (as opposed to opportunistic or one-off criminals) that use guns to commit crime do not generally use ones they legally own. It would, after all, significantly increase their risk of being caught.

You're probably right that most stolen guns would be sold on back onto the market. It's very likely a substantial proportion, however, also circulate through the criminal community. Not least because plenty of criminals may buy stolen guns from dodgy pawn shops.

pyrate:

So you think there is nothing wrong with killing someone because they broke in to steal a DVD player? I have said it before and I will say it again, no one breaks into a complete strangers house to kill them. It makes zero sense.

When a criminal forces his way into your home you assume he has the most benign of criminal intentions. Breaking in to hurt/kill someone may not make sense to you, but to a derranged criminal it might.

pyrate:

Lets put some things in perspective. There are around 400 burglary related homicides each year. Around 30% of the time someone is home at the time of a burglary. 7% of cases involve violence, but in 65% of those cases the burglar is known to the victim

There would be more burglary related violence and homicides if people were prohibited from having a gun for self defense. Criminals would be emboldened if they knew their intended victims were prohibited from defending themselves. Gun ownership by the law abiding has a deterrent effect on crime.

pyrate:

You are more likely to be killed by accidental shooting then by a home invader and significantly more likely to be killed or kill a family member with your own gun.

I think this statistic lumps everyone together, both criminal and good people.

JRslinger:

When a criminal forces his way into your home you assume he has the most benign of criminal intentions. Breaking in to hurt/kill someone may not make sense to you, but to a derranged criminal it might.

Well, some will be 'deranged', although I would suggest they are very much a minority. Almost certainly most are reasonably rational people who want to get in, nick your valuables and get out with an absolute minimum of fuss, which is why they generally target homes when they think nobody's in.

There would be more burglary related violence and homicides if people were prohibited from having a gun for self defense. Criminals would be emboldened if they knew their intended victims were prohibited from defending themselves. Gun ownership by the law abiding has a deterrent effect on crime.

There is no firm, clear or consistent evidence indicating that gun ownership decreases crime. Anecdotally, there are lots of stories, but in the overall picture, reducing crime is not generally a good argument to defend gun ownership.

But then, if you want to argue that you should have a gun because it makes you feel better due to fear of criminals, I'd say that itself is actually a decent justification to defend gun ownership.

pyrate:

You are more likely to be killed by accidental shooting then by a home invader and significantly more likely to be killed or kill a family member with your own gun.

I think this statistic lumps everyone together, both criminal and good people.[/quote]

Your complaint is not obvious to me.
1) Home invaders are criminals.
2) Accidentally killed is tantamount to 'good' (by which I think you mean lacking criminal intent, as shooting someone accidentally is potentially criminal).
3) Killed by or killing a family member with your own gun could feasibly be either. I'm not sure it matters at all, though.

Agema:
Well, if they steal your guns, they're not what I'd call potential criminals.

I had planned on saying, if any potential criminals out there want to steal my guns. You can see how well that plan worked out (mainly because I forgot what I was going to say).

One might also assume hardened, lifestyle criminals (as opposed to opportunistic or one-off criminals) that use guns to commit crime do not generally use ones they legally own. It would, after all, significantly increase their risk of being caught.

True but there are plenty of illegal guns on the streets. Just cross into Mexico and you can get a Venezuelan AK for a few hundred dollars. Hell if you want a decent "Saturday Night Special" you can find one on the streets on any major city just by asking around.

You're probably right that most stolen guns would be sold on back onto the market. It's very likely a substantial proportion, however, also circulate through the criminal community. Not least because plenty of criminals may buy stolen guns from dodgy pawn shops.

Yes but that is accidental. No criminal would want to be caught with a stolen gun. That would add burglary charge on top of whatever else they might be charged with. My overall point was that when criminal break into homes to steal guns they look for expensive collections not for themselves but to sell them and then buy (whether legally or illegally) a cheap untraceable gun.

reonhato:
and this is exactly what is wrong with american thinking. you call them violent criminals... they didnt act violent, they certainly were trying for intimidating but there is absolutely no proof they were violent. it is not brave to act violently at the risk of others to save your own possessions.

They weren't acting violent? How is four men piling out of a car, armed to the teeth, and attempting to kick a man's door in not a violent act? The problem with your way of thinking is that someone would likely have to be [/i]killed[/i] before you would conclude that they intended to do this man harm. Where do you draw the line? Your logic doesn't hold up, because you base your points on assumptions that do not align with the facts. Given the actions of the criminals in the video I posted, what can we conclude? You assume robbery, but quite frankly, you can't know that. It could have been an attempted gang hit on a random target, it could have been a drug dealer sending a team to make an example, or it could have been a random act of violence with the possibility of a score (some loot) along the way.

All we know is what the homeowner knew when he saw his camera feed:

"There are four armed men rolling up on my house, and they obviously aren't here to sell popcorn."

you ask would i let my life rest in the criminals hands, of course i would, because my country has actually educated people on the correct response in these types of situations. if 4 strangers rock up to my house, i have done nothing at all to warrant them killing me and have no reason to believe they are there to kill me. statistically the chances of being murder by random by a complete stranger is astronomical, it is far more likely they are just going to rob me. i have 2 choices, let them rob me with the astronomical chance they might kill me, or fight back drastically increasing the likelihood someone will die.

We aren't simply talking about four men just walking up and knocking on your door. We are talking about four heavily armed men trying to force their way into your home.

What you fail to realize is that people like those in the video have every reason to kill you. It doesn't matter whether they know you or not or whether or not you have wronged them in some way. The simple act of yo being there is a risk to them as you could A.) possibly pick them out of a lineup, and/or B.) testify against them if they let you live but are caught later. People that break the law to this extent have already shown that they don't care for the conventions of society. Whey would your life matter again? The fact is, that the odds of them killing you in a situation like this are far from astronomical. In fact, given the situation presented in the video, the likelihood that an innocent man would have been killed had he not been armed is actually quite high.

The fact is that allowing oneself to be at the mercy of another human being who really doesn't care whether you live or die is pure stupidity. Again, you are risking your life on the assumption that the person holding you captive is both rational and fears the consequences of taking your life. If either of those things were true, they never would have kicked in the door in the first place.

the reason i say i would hope the guy would have gone to jail has already been explained. self defense is only allowed equal force, lethal in a very large majority of cases is not equal. unfortunately much of america has some sort of castle doctrine, which is basically a free license to kill someone who really is not a deadly threat

The homeowner was armed with a rifle. The men assaulting his house were equally armed and moreso. This is a perfect example of a legitimate use of equal (lethal) force. The homeowner was faced with a threat armed with rifles and handguns. The homeowner responded with a rifle. How is that not equal?

You also have a poor grasp of what, "Castle Doctrine," actually is, but I saw that it was already explained you (at least partially) prior to this post.

by fighting back this man has drastically increased the likelihood of not only himself but others being injured or killed. this is contradictory to the whole self defense thing, and a big argument for gun control supporters. guns escalate violence and turn it lethal, this is not opinion this is fact. there is a reason most other developed nations will teach citizens to not fight against criminals.

By fighting back, this man likely saved his own life. By your logic, he should have let himself get buttstroked across the back of the head when these men walked in and then shot in the back as these men left.

How is defending one's own life contradictory to the principles of self-defense? That is exactly what this man did! If he had hurt or killed his attackers, who cares? They were armed, invading a man's home, and they knew the risks. A civilian owning a gun not only helped him to defend his life and property, but it also caused his attackers to flee - ENDING the whole encounter. It did not escalate the situation, it caused it to come to a swift end.

america is wrong. its that simple. (actually its really only some of america, any where else there would probably be enough support to warrant implementing stricter gun control, unfortunately though the NRA has way to much influence). most of the developed world figured out guns in the hands of untrained civilians does far more harm than good decades ago. you guys are only just catching up with health care, unfortunately its probably going to be another 4 or 5 decades before you catch up with guns

America is wrong? That's quite a sweeping, arrogant, and judgemental statement to make. I thought we were above irrational generalizations about entire nations.

Quite frankly, from what I have heard from you so far, it is you who are incorrect.

1. You champion the idea of becoming a victim; preferring to ignore any advantage in a violent situation in favor of accepting a disadvantage and accepting a position of powerlessness in a situation where inaction could result in death. You only get one life. Why would you leave it completely to chance by doing nothing?

2. You refuse to see the situation presented for what it is; inferring motive where none is implied and ignoring the facts presented in favor of a series of events that does not match the scenario in order to suit your world view. In short, you are being blissfully ignorant because accepting the fact that this man lawfully and successfully defended his life and his home with his rifle is distasteful to you.

3. You look down on those who would defend their own lives, and you place far too much value on the lives of those who wish to take the lives of those who they percieve as weak.

In all reality, criminals love to meet people like you. It makes their jobs easier and far less dangerous.

4. You value the lives of criminals beyond and/or on the same level as that of the victim, and you seem to champion the idea that, given the situation presented, the man who defended his very life should be charged with a crime for doing so. You would deem a man an outlaw for protecting their own life? That's quite sad.

EDIT: America offers it's citizens the unique right of being able to defend their lives to the greatest extent if need be. Does your country afford you the right to self-defense? From what you have said so far, I will venture a guess and say no.

tsb247:

EDIT: America offers it's citizens the unique right of being able to defend their lives to the greatest extent if need be. Does your country afford you the right to self-defense? From what you have said so far, I will venture a guess and say no.

yes my country affords me the right of self-defense with reasonable force. the difference of course being that in my country killing someone is not considered reasonable in most cases.

america has a super high murder rate compared to the rest of the developed world. your gun crime is through the roof. there is a truckload of evidence to show that owning a gun increases the chance of you or a family member being killed by a gun.

it simply comes down to americans thinking about themselves again. i think pyrate posted some stats on it earlier that showed the chances of being killed during a home burglary is astronomical, but of course some americans would much rather put others at risk just to make themselves feel safer, despite the fact that there is no evidence that owning a gun is going to make you any safer, in fact its quite the opposite.

homicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

suicide rates are higher in houses with a gun.

doesnt take a genius to figure out what to do

pyrate:
Who else sees the problem with the belief that someone else with a gun is a threat, having a gun yourself is defense.

Someone having a gun is not grounds for lethal force. If you fire on them first, without warning, then you are the one provoking violence. If you give them warning that you are armed and will assume they plan on doing you harm if they continue to invade your home, then you have the right to defend yourself if they continue.

As for criminals, the idea that they deserve to die for their crimes is unjust. The US accounts for nearly 99% of death penalties in the developed world (Japan executes one or two people a year). The US also has the largest prison population by far. Why is it then that the US also has a high recidivism rate?

1. The highest percentage of death penalties per percent of population is Signapore, not the US.

2. Most of the serving time are in jail for drug crimes or "third strike" crimes, I.E. do three misdonmeaners and get big penalities. There are MANY things wrong with this system (I am for legalization of drugs), but it isn't in of it self an indecator of the level of violent of the nation.

3. A person is armed without your expressed consent on YOUR property. That is a crime in of it self. How many logical reasons can you come up with if you saw a man, in YOUR house, on YOUR property that you did not invite or give permission to bring that in? I will wait.

4. If a crimminal is using a gun during a crime with you around, no matter their intentions, your ALWAYS at risk. Even if you give the guy what he wants, he is likely going to be disregaurding the rules "do not have finger on trigger" and "don't point at what you do not want to shoot," which can easily lead to an accidental death. Or, of course, he may decide to kill you once he is done to have no witnesses/make sure you can't call the police the second he is gone/for the LOLs.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked