Results 101 to 110 of 130
-
08-27-2008 #101
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
-
08-27-2008 #102
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by hippifried
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.
-
08-28-2008 #103Originally Posted by InHouston
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.
And maybe its easier to withdraw from life
With all of its misery and wretched lies
If we're dead when tomorrow's gone
The Big Machine will just move on
Still we cling afraid we'll fall
Clinging like the memory which haunts us all
-
08-28-2008 #104
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 950
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?
-
08-28-2008 #105
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by SarahG
Originally Posted by SarahGOriginally Posted by SarahG
Originally Posted by SarahG
Originally Posted by SarahG
Originally Posted by SarahG
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.
Originally Posted by SarahG
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.
-
08-28-2008 #106
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.
-
08-28-2008 #107
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 950
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.
-
08-28-2008 #108
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.
"You can pick your friends & you can pick your nose, but you can't wipe your friends off on your saddle."
~ Kinky Friedman ~
-
08-28-2008 #109
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.
-
08-28-2008 #110
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- London
- Posts
- 950
Originally Posted by InHouston
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'?