The wisdom and foresight of Tomfurbs and Trish here on H.A.

[InHouston]

SoonToBeArrested/CommitedInHouston is back!

Shoot any 'black men with shotguns' lately, old top?

edit: about the 'coward' quip. I walk the streets of my city without fear. I sleep soundly at night. I don't put my trust in a gun.

How is that cowardly?

In that context, I wouldn't neccessarily call you cowardly. I'd call you an 'easy target'.

[InHouston]

Home invasions are extremely rare, & most are pulled off using the guns stolen from those who were arming themselves in fear of home invasions.

Extremely rare huh? They occur here an average of one to three times a week on the morning news.

Case in point, here's another one that happened last night in my area:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=6351213

Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | 8:12 AM

MISSOURI CITY, TX (KTRK) -- A man inside a Missouri City home was shot by armed intruders.

Pedro Escalante, 31, three adult females and a one-year-old baby were home at the time. One of the suspects shot Escalante in the neck or head. He was airlifted to the hospital and is listed as stable.
There's no word if the suspects took anything from the home. Investigators are trying to determine a motive.

[SarahG]

My compliments on your reasoning and insight SarahG, and very well said. And you did emphasize the point that is critical in all of this; training. I attend a tactical handgun defense class once a week. Before we enter the range we have to sit through the same safety briefing every time. I've heard the briefing dozens and dozens of times and its importance and impact has never diminished. There are people in there from many walks of life; young, old, male, female, timid, agile, aggressive, passive. There is even a pastor of a local church in there now since the church shooting in Knoxville Tennessee. What is stressed to everyone is proper and safe concealment, handling, and operation of the firearm, and most importantly to not injure innocent bystanders when defending yourself. They regularly address questions on how to safely stow loaded weapons in the home where children cannot access them, yet adults can get to them quickly should an intruder break in.

I do not buy the argument that your chances of getting to your weapon during an intrusion in your home are low. That is a matter of addressing the perimeter defense of your home. There is now a plethora of indoor and outdoor motion sensors that can be discreetly installed anywhere in and around your home. Because I woke up one morning to a burglar in my backyard, I now have four birdhouses inconspicuously perched in strategic paths along my back yard. Inside each one is a motion sensor that triggers an audible signal inside the house when someone is lurking around the yard. They even have doormats now with a pressure sensor and a hidden transmitter that will sound an audible signal in your home when someone merely steps on the mat. That is an excellent first line of defense to a kick-in robbery. If the mat is beeping, and there is no knock or ring of the doorbell, you now have a valid warning that something is awry outside your door. I have burglar bars as well, so I don’t even worry about a home invasion in spite of what some knuckleheads on this subject think I sit around worrying about. They’d have to make quite a ruckus to enter my home and will seek out another house to intrude upon. The bars serve as both an obstacle and a deterrent, and I sleep well at night.

Thanks again for your well thought out words, and was a breath of fresh air. First intelligent response I’ve seen to this post from a mind capable of sound reasoning.

None of that really counters what I said, in a surprise scenario you're going to have difficulty getting to your firearms in time in most cases- especially when dealing with long arms.

What you've done is merely an attempt to mitigate the possibility of an intruder surprising you. If that surprise manages to happen (through whatever means), or happens where your mitigation techniques aren't there- then you bet you're still gonna have a hard time getting to your firearms in time.

Mitigation techniques help but they're not flawless, there's always the chance you're going to somehow miss a buzzer from motion detectors, leave the property allowing someone in the meantime to successfully hide behind the bushes next to you for when you come home to gain entrance, whatever.

Which is where the importance of training comes in- for when you DO have to deal with surprise attacks- the paramount issue is not making things worse for yourself, either in leaving loaded firearms around the house for people to break in and acquire for use against you.... or acquiring your carried weapon (most likely a sidearm) during a surprise struggle.

I don't think very many posts in this thread have called for a flat out ban, at the very least training seems to be the only point that seems to have universal agreement.

But for myself, I can see cases where it would not be unreasonable for someone to have a firearm for protection.

As to why America has a "gun problem" in comparison to other societies with a greater guns per capita rate? I would only be able to speculate on that point. It would probably be reasonable to suspect that these other societies advocate gun ownership for similar reasons (Swiss law requiring gun ownership after conscription service sounds, if anything, like an armed militia force in case of foreign invasion- but again not being swiss I am just speculating here). It would be difficult for me to pinpoint what differences exist to create the differences in gun violence statistics. I kinda doubt it is as simple as mainstream belief in gun ownership for protection purposes (either PvP or PvNation), just as I seriously doubt it is childhood use of 1st person shooter video games (which are just as popular over there). Movies, music? Come on now, is found just about everywhere- Coca cola is the most commonly known word in the entire planet.

If I were to venture a guess it would simply be a byproduct of a bad combination of factors such as urban poverty, a completely kaput "school system" in our cities, a drop out rate so bad that people really have nothing but min wage OR crime to turn to, and a min wage that is so far below reasonable living standards as to make crime seem as the better of the evils, widespread consumer fundamentalism to the point where people are kept in the hole, unaffordable medical care, and entire industries existing solely to scam those in the impoverished portions of our cities (have you seen the housing foreclosure stats breaking it down based on SEC or race?).

Such situations have been known historically to cause violent crimes on general terms... I would have no difficulty identifying districts in NYC, Chicago, and others that were flat out avoided by self respecting bourgeoisie in the late 19th century America, simply because of the violent crime that came with the poverty.

I am curious what theories there are here regarding the knife/blade crime stats involving countries that had tried to curb gun violence through gun ownership restrictions. I don't particularly see these problems as being separate issues simply because in one case a gun was used, and in another it was something else.

[Tomfurbs]

The Swiss gun law is to do with National security. The gun each house has is in effect 'government property', to be used in time of invasion (pretty handy if your nation is bordered on all sides by warring countries).

It is not meant for personal defence. The Swiss go a bundle on national security, with compulsory National Service and huge air-raid shelters carved into the Alps. Their gun law is deeply rooted in a sense of 'collective responsibility'.

Here's an article by the pinko limey press all about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm



LivingInFearInHouston, the only people who view other people as 'targets' are cross-eyed gun-fetishists like yourself.


It is very simple :

When the UK had our 'Columbine' (Dunblane 1996), we outlawed handguns (automatic weapons were already illegal). We haven't had a similar incident since. We have our fair share of crazies, but when they're armed with axes or kitchen knives they don't inflict as much damage.

The US has had countless 'Columbines', and every time it happens you hum and harr, scratch your buzz-cuts, jerk-off about the 2nd and the 'way of the west', and do nothing. Hell, you even overturn bans, like in Washington.

Tell me, which way is the more realistic, pragmatic, and caring?

[InHouston]

None of that really counters what I said, in a surprise scenario you're going to have difficulty getting to your firearms in time in most cases- especially when dealing with long arms.

If your home has adequate perimeter defense, then there should be no reason why you’d be caught in a surprise scenario.

What you've done is merely an attempt to mitigate the possibility of an intruder surprising you. If that surprise manages to happen (through whatever means), or happens where your mitigation techniques aren't there- then you bet you're still gonna have a hard time getting to your firearms in time.

Mitigation techniques help but they're not flawless, there's always the chance you're going to somehow miss a buzzer from motion detectors, leave the property allowing someone in the meantime to successfully hide behind the bushes next to you for when you come home to gain entrance, whatever.

Situational awareness solves these problems as well. Never leave or return home without your weapon on your person. If someone were to come lurching out of the bushes at you, you have your weapon to defend yourself. Even if the person were to absolutely surprise you, and take you hostage to gain entry into your home, you need only discreetly draw your weapon from your waist (which is where I carry), turn into the intruder and fire. Your hands are right there at your weapon. Most people when robbed were not paying attention to their immediate surroundings, nor do they rehearse situations like this in their head. As in the case of a friend of mine who was robbed in a parking lot at night. He stated, “He was right on me before I knew it.” I asked, “Were you paying attention to your surroundings while walking to your car?” He said, “Well now that I think about it I really wasn’t paying any attention at all.”

Which is where the importance of training comes in- for when you DO have to deal with surprise attacks- the paramount issue is not making things worse for yourself, either in leaving loaded firearms around the house for people to break in and acquire for use against you.... or acquiring your carried weapon (most likely a sidearm) during a surprise struggle.

Never leave loaded firearms accessible in your home when you’re not there. Invest in a safe, have it bolted to the floor, and be vigilant about storing weapons in there while you’re gone. When I run to the store, I put extraneous weapons in there and spin the dial to lock it. That way I know should I come home and someone had gained entry, my weapons are safely secured. And this just isn’t for intruders only. Should a tornado just happen to drop on your neighborhood and scatter your house around the block, at least you know your weapons won’t be.

I don't think very many posts in this thread have called for a flat out ban, at the very least training seems to be the only point that seems to have universal agreement.

Seems to me the majority of people in here would favor a ban on firearms or overly strict regulation.

As to why America has a "gun problem" in comparison to other societies with a greater guns per capita rate?

My overall concern with the “gun problem” in America is simply the attitude of the youth in this nation now. There is a prevalent “thug culture” in this nation now and West Coast style street gang mentality is running rampant in this nation. The attitudes are horrible and downright dangerous. Criminals in this country now will pull a gun and use it on you simply if they feel they’ve been disrespected. I didn’t see this phenomenon 10 years ago. Yes America still had guns and its inherent problems with that, but a decade ago the senseless violence just wasn’t at the level it is today. I’ve been to Canada before on business, and the people there seem to be much more civil and the youth in that country strike me as being much more mature. Welfare in this country has encouraged single mothers to raise many children with no father in the home. Coupled with drugs and the lure of easy money, young people in this country are easily seduced and intoxicated into a lifestyle of gangs, drugs, and crime. And most of the dangerous youth now are not even affiliated with street gangs, they have a gang mentality and emulate them to be cool and to feel empowered. Again 10 years ago these were isolated pockets of problems in various communities. But now, the problem has spread into mainstream America and has taken root in communities all over the nation. If that wasn’t bad enough, then Katrina rolled into New Orleans and the city of Houston bused the dregs of New Orleans into Houston. The crime rate in this area has skyrocketed since. Just a mile down the road Katrina Evacuees are openly dealing drugs on the street corner at various low income apartment complexes, they venture in and out of my neighborhood walking up and down the street smoking tweeds and you can see black and white residents of this neighborhood alike standing in their driveways with grave looks of consternation on their faces, or in other words thinking “Great there goes the neighborhood.” One day I even had to flag a constable down because two of them were walking down the street and openly fumbling with a large semi-automatic weapon while casually walking through the neighborhood. I left some roofers at my house one day who were simply eating their lunch on my yard, and when I returned they said two black guys came up onto my yard and said “What you lookin at you punk ass Mexican bitches?” One day I was pulling out of the neighborhood, and shouted from a car to my right “Hurry up you punk ass mother fucker!”

You know, and it offends me how some people on this board will simply dismiss valid concerns that people have who just want to be safe. I would respect some people’s opinions here more if they would at least inquire something to the effect of “Is it really that bad over there?” Yes it is. I went to the store yesterday, and just down the street on the back of a local business spray painted in big letters looms “CRIPS”.

I mean come on man.

I am curious what theories there are here regarding the knife/blade crime stats involving countries that had tried to curb gun violence through gun ownership restrictions. I don't particularly see these problems as being separate issues simply because in one case a gun was used, and in another it was something else.

Hooligans in England are running rampant and openly robbing people with bats and knives. Hell, they even now congregate on street corners and beat people up for the fun of it on a Saturday night. Just look on YouTube. I even saw a video where two English policeman got beat up by a gang of 10 hooligans openly fighting them because the police weren’t armed.

Again, guns have always been a problem in this nation, but there is now a bad shift in the attitudes of young people here now thanks to the proliferation of West Coast style gangs. They are this generation's rock stars and they’re emulated everywhere.

[InHouston]

The Swiss gun law is to do with National security. The gun each house has is in effect 'government property', to be used in time of invasion (pretty handy if your nation is bordered on all sides by warring countries).

It is not meant for personal defence. The Swiss go a bundle on national security, with compulsory National Service and huge air-raid shelters carved into the Alps. Their gun law is deeply rooted in a sense of 'collective responsibility'.

Here's an article by the pinko limey press all about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm



LivingInFearInHouston, the only people who view other people as 'targets' are cross-eyed gun-fetishists like yourself.


It is very simple :

When the UK had our 'Columbine' (Dunblane 1996), we outlawed handguns (automatic weapons were already illegal). We haven't had a similar incident since. We have our fair share of crazies, but when they're armed with axes or kitchen knives they don't inflict as much damage.

The US has had countless 'Columbines', and every time it happens you hum and harr, scratch your buzz-cuts, jerk-off about the 2nd and the 'way of the west', and do nothing. Hell, you even overturn bans, like in Washington.

Tell me, which way is the more realistic, pragmatic, and caring?

Look around the outskirts of Washington D.C., and you'll find that it is a veritable slum. To take guns from armed citizens is not pragmatic, realistic, nor caring. You seem to always miss the simple point that criminals don't care about a gun ban. THEY DON’T CARE NOR DO THEY OBEY IT. In fact, they would welcome it. You have this childish way of humoring yourself by accusing people like me as viewing other human beings as ‘targets’. People like you always impugn and vilify the good people for having guns, and I never see you posting any opinions about the criminals. I often wonder if you’re not a criminal yourself. Criminals would agree with your position on gun control. Hell, maybe you’re their advocate incognito.

[Tomfurbs]

Boss, criminals will always be there. Criminals having access to firearms has little to do with discussing a gun-ban, because if they want to they will always find ways to get them, gun-ban or not.

The argument against having firearms easily available is more to do with stopping the general idiot public shooting at each other, either through accidents or rage etc. The dude who did Dunblane and all the other insane scumbags who carry out those kind of attacks were 'respectable', 'law-abiding' citizens before they turned wierd.

Since you are such a fan of youtube, and view it as an accurate depiction of human behaviour, may I suggest you look up the myriad videos of untrained, often drunk, 'citizens' playing with their Desert Eagles, .44's and shotguns. That kind of reckless behaviour would be a lot more worrying to me, if I was a citizen of your country, than shitting myself in fear over some home invasion that will never come.

Guns don't make anything safer. They just escalate the level of violence. You pull a knife on someone, someone will get stabbed, whether it be you or your opponent. The same thing applies with guns. As I wrote in the other thread; I cannot think of a single fracas I have been involved in where guns, even in the hands of the Police, would have been a help.

About whether I am a criminal or not well, you can rest easy. I won't be attempting to breach your 'perimeter defence' any time soon.

It's nice to see you replying with fully-formed coherent sentences, though, instead of your usual monosyllabic grunting.

[hippifried]

The number one crime in America is burglary.

The number one gun crime in America is theft of guns.

Home invasion is waaaaaay down the list, & most of them are committed by someone who's known to the victim. It's never random. The victims are always vetted by the perpetrators. Unless revenge or criminal competition factors into the action, and that's likely, the priority list of things to be siezed is:
cash
drugs
GUNS!
jewelry
identity & financial documents
other stuff depending on time constraints & ability to haul it out of there
It's the same priority list, in the same order, for any thief in someone's home, whether the victim is there or not.

This is all just so much paranoia. I don't have a problem with the private ownership of guns. I do have a problem with guns in the hands of crazies as well as criminals. It's a bit scary to think that there's people who are armed to the teeth, too scared to leave their homes, & peeking out the windows looking for anybody they don't recognize.

It'd be nice if there was some kind of reliable sanity test that could be given while doing the background check. Actually, it'd be nice if there was any kind of reliable sanity test at all. We always seem to find out too late.

[InHouston]

Boss, criminals will always be there. Criminals having access to firearms has little to do with discussing a gun-ban, because if they want to they will always find ways to get them, gun-ban or not.

I concede that point

The argument against having firearms easily available is more to do with stopping the general idiot public shooting at each other, either through accidents or rage etc.

I concede that point too.

The dude who did Dunblane and all the other insane scumbags who carry out those kind of attacks were 'respectable', 'law-abiding' citizens before they turned wierd.

I concede that point too.

All criminals before they commit their first crime have been law-abiding citizens up to that point. The Dunblane perpetrator had to have been ‘weird’ long before. The problem I have with Columbine is the parent’s of the two boys Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. How is it that a young boy can have a stock pile of weapons, ammunition, pipe bombs, and pages of incriminating journals and the parents not know this? You have A.D.D., and you have what I call P.D.D. Parental Deficit Disorder; plain and simple.

Since you are such a fan of youtube, and view it as an accurate depiction of human behaviour, may I suggest you look up the myriad videos of untrained, often drunk, 'citizens' playing with their Desert Eagles, .44's and shotguns. That kind of reckless behaviour would be a lot more worrying to me, if I was a citizen of your country, than shitting myself in fear over some home invasion that will never come.

YouTube has accurate as well as inaccurate (mostly) depictions of human behavior, and I never said I was a big fan of YouTube. YouTube does provide video from ordinary people without the corporate media spin on things. You simply have to weed out the personal spin, bias, and full-on fiction that is wrought in much of the media up there. But, a positive change in America is the recent niche market of indoor gun ranges popping up all over the place offering professional training once only available to military and law enforcement; and people in this country damn well need it. I once saw a security guard at a bus stop holding a guy at gun point for breaking into cars until the police came. She was yelling at him and waving her gun around in all directions with her finger on the trigger. For my safety I left the area.

Guns don't make anything safer. They just escalate the level of violence. You pull a knife on someone, someone will get stabbed, whether it be you or your opponent. The same thing applies with guns. As I wrote in the other thread; I cannot think of a single fracas I have been involved in where guns, even in the hands of the Police, would have been a help.

I’ll concede your point in the first sentence, but I have to lean towards the context of the criminal. The criminals escalate the violence with guns. If someone pulls a knife on me, there is a clear 99% probability in my head that I can pull a gun and he will back off. In such a scenario, guns are safer and defuse the violence. Should that person exhibit the 1% scenario and keep advancing, then a couple of warning shots high over his head will probably startle him into a retreat. Should he keep coming, then the guy probably just has a death wish anyway, at which point I can only allow the person to advance so far until the knife is getting within striking range and I have nowhere to continue a retreat on my part. Now if someone pulls a gun, they’ve given me no choice. I don’t want to shoot someone, but I don’t want to die either. They made the choice for me at that point.

And another thing Tomfurbs, I’m not this kneejerk gun fanatic with an itchy trigger finger just waiting to pop someone. I am very aware of the fact that I could continue to go to training for the rest of my life, and may never ever have to use my gun in self-defense. You could cut me some slack here. I have encountered people who own firearms that are just simply not trainable, and I aspire to not be in that group of gun owners.

About whether I am a criminal or not well, you can rest easy. I won't be attempting to breach your 'perimeter defence' any time soon.

That was just fodder on my part that you’ve been lobbing at me as well.

It's nice to see you replying with fully-formed coherent sentences, though, instead of your usual monosyllabic grunting.

I never claimed to be a diplomat, yet I can have a civil discussion as long as my points are considered and not just smashed at every turn with no intellectual convincing on my part as to why those points were smashed. If we don’t agree in the end, then we agree to disagree in the end. Here’s my take on things. If someone were to tell me, “There are criminals everywhere doing home invasions, robberies, and this and that …” and it was my first time being exposed to such information, I don’t lash back, I’m naturally curious as to whether it’s true or not. If there is something that is a potential danger to me, than I compel myself to explore that claim for my own good. I’m convinced that there are criminals out there in Houston every day, and it’s a good idea to be prepared. There are also millions and millions of Americans who will tell me that I will go to hell unless I except Jesus into my life. I immediately tell them, “I don’t believe in your God, any gods, deities, souls, spirits, angels, demons, heaven or hell. I exist, and one day I will cease to exist, and I will simply return to that void from which I came.”

And with that TomFurbs, I am especially concerned about my physical safety, because in my mind I am merely a mortal man. Should someone kill me, that’s it. There’s nothing else beyond the grave, and as an Atheist I want to die on my own terms and not on the whims of some criminal who values my personal property more than my life.

Does this make sense now?

And I appreciate you referring to me as Boss for a change instead of the derogatory aliases you’ve been throwing in here. Perhaps we could continue down this civil path and learn something from each other. The ball is in your court.

[Tomfurbs]

Perhaps we could continue down this civil path and learn something from each other. The ball is in your court.

I don't think so. Pissing you off is too much fun. Plus, you started this lame bogus thread in an attempt to call me and trish out, so the gloves are off.

Dude, you can't really expect to suddenly turn yourself into the voice of reason after the completely mad shit you've been spewing in both gun-law threads. I'm an agnostic, and equally aware of the finality of death, and no, I don't want to be killed by someone with a gun. Whether that someone is a 'black man with a shotgun' as you so charmingly put it, or your own arsenal-owning ass, is pretty much academic. (p.s white people commit crimes too y'know, sometimes even with shotguns)

America is a country that has problems, as all countries do, but what that country doesn't need is more guns. Getting bent out of shape over you're right to bare arms, while so many other rights of yours are getting roughshod over, seems kind of mental. Allowing someone a quick and easy and relatively guilt-free means of killing people isn't a good idea, even if their nation is a peaceful as Canada. People get drunk and crazy and do stupid things. Even the best of us do.

I think of gun bans as damage limitation. And all I can say is, from personal experience, I am fucking glad I don't live in a country where any old twat can walk into a supermarket and buy some heavy artillery.

As for all that rubbish about 'firing warning shots'...who are you kidding? You come across as a pretty prejudiced and paranoid individual, so I imagine your 'warning' shots will probably depend on who you've got in your sights.


Also, why do you need so many? You've only got two hands. Are you in active service in the military or Law Enforcement? Is your house (I bet you call it a 'compound', right?) constantly under siege by all these 'black men with shotguns'?