I agree. Your system is fucked. Make it state-run and secular, and you can weed out the religious nutjobs, like we have done. :shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Printable View
I agree. Your system is fucked. Make it state-run and secular, and you can weed out the religious nutjobs, like we have done. :shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
It happened. I'm not revealing the link to the story, although I've been tempted to, simply because I don't want to 'out' myself here. Trish is the one who promoted the theory that my post on this incident was fabricated, and that she is unable to find anything on the web that closely resembles what happens. Great research skills there Trish!Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
An update to the story is that the perpetrators were caught, and lived just down the street. Two young black males armed with 12 gauge shotguns. They shot him directly in the face nearly blowing his head completely off. His family decided it best to have his body cremated. Turns out some youths around the neighborhood, who knew the perpetrators, reported to police the two had been planning this robbery for a week. None of them thought they were serious and just blew it off as bravado. It was rumored that a chest in his bedroom contained a stash of cash and jewelry. All that was in the chest was a collection of Elvis memorabilia.
An anecdote, let alone one that’s likely fabricated, has little to no relevance on the estimation of probabilities. I’m merely recommending against buying a firearm and keeping it loaded and unlocked in your home. The possibility that you or someone you love will get shot by that firearm is much more likely than the possibility that an armed stranger will attempt to break into your home. The probability that 1) your home is invaded and 2) your firearm is in reach and 3) you actually manage to successfully defend yourself with it is even smaller.
In our discussion in another thread on the 2nd Amendment, InHouston saw his efforts to construct a logical argument collapse before his eyes. As usual, he rested his case and left in a huff. So now he attempts to win, not by logic, but by raising the emotional stakes. What I’ve suggested in this thread is that (judging by his posts after the alleged incident) InHouston was feigning grief and anger in lieu of real human emotion.
Actually, the most likely scenario is that you'll go to work (if you have a job) or down to the grease pit or bar, & come home to find that somebody already broke in & stole your gun. Shortly thereafter, the cops will be at your door wondering why your gun was used to shoot the 7/11 clerk or in that driveby across town.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Sorry to interject here, but am i the only person who looks at the Swiss and goes, 'Hmmmm, they have lots of guns but dont go about shooting each other?'
Lets look at some statistics:
1.3-3million firearms in private homes in Switzerland (of these 420000 are registered assault rifles!)
In 2006 there were 34 killings/ attempted killings involving firearms.
Proof if it were needed, Guns don't kill people- People kill people.
I have not long moved back to the UK from southern california, and good god i feel so much safer walking the streets of london, and that is really saying something!
Almost all Swiss males enter the military and are exhaustively TRAINED in firearm safety. When leaving active service, most men remain in the reserves. The reserves are allowed to keep their government issued weapon at home. Military law is very strict in Switzerland, the active military and the reserves are expected to treat their weapons with the utmost respect (e.g. the typical reserve doesn’t keep his weapon in the truck when he goes out drinking, just in case he might need it in a bar fight). To carry a gun in Switzerland, one must have a permit. Such permits are usually issued only to private citizens whose jobs are related to security. This same permit is required for the purchase of a firearm. There are laws (that apply to the military and private citizens) restricting the transport of firearms within Switzerland.
It’s true, Switzerland demonstrates that it’s possible, with proper controls and education, to have an armed populace and a low crime rate. It’s also true that the U.S. demonstrates that without proper regulation and education, people (accidentally or otherwise) will kill people with guns.
afaik they automatically become reservists for 10 years and the military service is compulsory (with the exception of opting for civillian service instead)Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
point is the reason so many swiss have a gun is not becuase they want to but because they have to
and you can be certain that citizens of a country whos only use of military force in the last whatever years was when a group of swiss accidentially marched through liechtenstein during training in a dark rainy night wont store their guns under their pillows
Unless things have changed, and I admit they often do- the swiss were required by law to keep their gov issued fiearm after their service.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Maybe that just means that Americans are crazier. Many people in the US seem to be under the impression that they are still living in Dodge City...so they keep their six-gun at the ready...Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesb121
SarahG and muhmuh both point out (in different ways) that I've understated my case. Thanks to you both.
You're right. My anecdote has absolutely no relevance to your "estimation of probabilities". That's all you're good for is estimates, and theories, and useless rhetoric that all stem from data trolled from Google, and based on zero personal experience on your part. Your rhetoric is simply an elaborate foist to conceal the fact that you (and others who staunchly agree with you) are simply cowards. You flame every single response I post here simply because you hate and/or fear what you lack within yourself. The more you post, the more you reveal how insubstantial and vacuous you are as a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
what might that be? paranoia maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
Amazing. No use discussing self-defense with a bunch of weenies.Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
Cowards? You're the one, InHouston, who thinks he needs a gun for protection. You're the one who's shivering from fear and telling everyone else they need to be afraid too. Lions, Tigers and Black Men with Shotguns....OH MY!!!
You are a coward. It's wrought in every post you've submitted on this topic. I've known 100 people like you that come and go. So confident, so informed, so resolute. Then when some "Black Man with a Shotgun ... OH MY!!!" breaks into your home you shiver under the bed like a helpless little rat, and will die like one too. Given your attitude on this subject, that is almost comical to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Oh so you now KNOW a HUNDRED people who have disagreed with you on this issue, and then proved themselves to be cowards after being forced to look down the business end of a gun barrel. Either that or you're just CONJECTURING they would behave like cowards in such a circumstance. Or maybe you're just projecting your own fear onto others. You're afraid of how you might behave if "they" caught you without your guns. Me, I'm not afraid of my fellow man. It's just as you said: I'm confident, informed and resolute.
As a gun owner I have to concede she makes a strong case about most people not having a chance in hell of getting to their firearm in time in the event of a home invasion. I know I would be hard pressed to get to and load my firearms in time if someone broke into my apartment, even if they weren't safely locked away in a secure locker or display case.Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
In order to get passed that element of surprise you'd in many situations have to either have intruders who take a while to come across you (happens) or have the weapon loaded & on your person.... which may or may not be the case (with longarms I consider that at best being unlikely... who honestly walks around all day at home with their rifle slung over their shoulder?). A sidearm on the other hand, ok sure- I am sure some people walk around on their private property all day with a holster and would not have difficulty getting to their firearm quickly. This does not inherently make the defense argument moot in all scenarios, all cases.
There are people for which there is a reasonable expectation that they will need to rely on a firearm for self defense purposes. The example that easily comes to mind here is dealing with known abusive, violent stalkers- especially in areas where police will not be quick to respond. Your order of protection isn't going to mean shit when dealing with someone who has been documented to be violent towards you, and you simply cannot rely on law enforcement to arrive in time if these incidents are cyclical (expected), and the more rural you are the more this becomes of a concern (but I think it would be false to use rural as the only gauge of this issue, a girl was attacked in my apartment complex in an urban environment and it took almost 40 minutes for police to respond- like usual, YMMV).
However even here training is essential. Just getting a gun without training, and leaving it unsecured where kids etc can get to it may look bad (I kinda flinch when anyone plays the 'for the children' lines in making cases- but that's just my person opinion- not meant to be pointed), but the concern I would point out along those lines is different (I am not going to debate accident statistics because they IMO can be quite unreliable due to the misinformation -from both sides- that have muddied the water). My concern is that for someone who needs a firearm for reasonable defensive purposes, if they don't have training on that firearm for that scenario they risk making their situation WORSE, not better. If your attacker is unarmed and you lose your weapon in a struggle- now you're the one unarmed facing an armed opponent.
I cannot see blanketly disallowing self defense as an argument for gun ownership in all cases, but I do see training as being a reasonable requirement for that ownership -DEPENDING on how it is is done in theory, as well as in practice.
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?
Home invasions are extremely rare, & most are pulled off using the guns stolen from those who were arming themselves in fear of home invasions.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
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.
In that context, I wouldn't neccessarily call you cowardly. I'd call you an 'easy target'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Extremely rare huh? They occur here an average of one to three times a week on the morning news.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally 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, American culture 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. :shrug
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?
If your home has adequate perimeter defense, then there should be no reason why you’d be caught in a surprise scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
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.”Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
Seems to me the majority of people in here would favor a ban on firearms or overly strict regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
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!”Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
I concede that pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
I concede that point too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
I concede that point too.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.Quote:
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.
That was just fodder on my part that you’ve been lobbing at me as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
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.”Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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'?
So be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Right, I which is basically what I was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
When all else fails, blame the "degradation of the American family." Sorry, not buying that argument. Disillusionment, inescapable poverty, ruined education facilities, and other such problems I'd argue have had a far larger role.Quote:
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. .
If it is as simple as divorce and welfare programs, we'd have seen utopias in our urban slums in the eras where divorce was unobtainable for the lower SECs. Crime then, in these areas were no more or less different from today- serial killers, murders, rapes, thefts- violence was a major component in impoverished urban life long before social welfare programs existed.
If anything it was easier for men back then to just disappear and abandon their families, its not like you could easily track someone down and make them pay child support in the 1870s.
Violence and militant radicalism cannot as easily thrive where people feel optimistic about their future IMHO.
Which is where accountability comes in. If you get reckless with something while you're drunk and kill someone, your ass should be dealt with by the justice system for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
I don't care if its a gun, knife, car, or a hammer. More cops here die from car chases than gun violence, but you don't see people (other than Nadar) pushing for a prohibition of automobiles.
Damage limitation? That argument is kaput if, in response to gun bans:Quote:
I think of gun bans as damage limitation.
1) people just turn to other ways of hurting people (sticks, stones, knives, bats, skateboards, etc)
2) criminals get their hands on firearms anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Kaput? Not really. At Dunblane, Tom Hamilton killed sixteen children and a teacher. He was able to kill that number because he was firing a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
The columbine killers where able to continue their spree because they were ar,ed with fireamrs
Shortly after the UK ban was passed the year after Dunblane, a maniac attacked a church with an axe in Surrey (I can't remember his name, I was a teen at the time). The fact that he was armed with an axe and not a gun meant that he was able to inflict a lot less damage, even though, of course, every death is tragic.
Americans always say that their country has such awful social problems, and this is why they have the gun crime they do, as opposed to other gun-owning nations like Canada or France. Firstly, what an embarrasing admission. Secondly, Americans are people just they same as everyone else. No more crazy or violent then the rest of the world. Therefore, when a country with a ban, like the UK, shows such proportionally lower crime stats than the US, it is irresponsible for Americans to say 'Oh, we have more sever social problems...the fact that guns are readily avaiable has nothing to do with it'. It is always easier to blame it on the poor and the blacks, though :roll:
Sarah said :
Which is where accountability comes in. If you get reckless with something while you're drunk and kill someone, your ass should be dealt with by the justice system for it.
I don't care if its a gun, knife, car, or a hammer. More cops here die from car chases than gun violence, but you don't see people (other than Nadar) pushing for a prohibition of automobiles.
1) Of course everyone is accountable for their actions. I never said otherwise. Not allowing people access to a simple and easy way of killing someone is a pragmatic social safeguard. In a country with a ban, even owning a gun is a crime and people who do so should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That in itself is a good counter-measure against crime.
2) A car is designed to get people from A to B. A gun is designed to kill people. If someone kills someone with a car, they are misusing it. If someone kills someone with a gun, even if it is an accident, the gun itself has performed the task it has been created for.
That is why there is no place for guns domestically during peace-time.
Ummm Hmmm ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
http://www.criminalsgonewilddvd.com/...ht-on-tape.htm
But these incidents are largely extremely rare. I am sure more people (including children) die in your country, as is the case in ours, from other means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Ok sure, a crazy guy went and shot up a bunch of kids and 16 were dead, I am sure this tragic event was extremely hard on their families, their community, maybe even their country.... but it means nothing if in the grand scheme of things, removing those guns caused a surge in violence where other implements were used (such as knives).
Expect you have no idea if he would have had access to a gun without Dublane, and you have no idea if he'd have used one if he had that access.Quote:
Shortly after the UK ban was passed the year after Dunblane, a maniac attacked a church with an axe in Surrey (I can't remember his name, I was a teen at the time). The fact that he was armed with an axe and not a gun meant that he was able to inflict a lot less damage, even though, of course, every death is tragic.
As you said, it was shortly after the event- even extreme gun regulatory measures aren't going to make an IMMEDIATE change to such a point that someone cannot access a gun when they want to. How do you think the criminals gain access to guns (you've said yourself they can today, and that's years after gun "reforms" were put in place in your country). It is a single event, all we can do is speculate.
We have the VIOLENCE that we do because of a combination of painfully obvious problems, economically, and socially. If you HONESTLY think that our cities' crime will just go and evaporate if guns were magically removed from our entire society, you're insane (or just really really out of touch with what it is like in the impoverished urban districts). That crime problem doesn't go away by controlling what weapon they have to use in committing it... and that is assuming that gun regulations would be able to remove enough guns from our society to actually prohibit criminals from accessing them. Given that you've said your own country can't achieve that end, then that's a pretty damning observation for any reform whose justification is precisely that (removing guns from criminals).Quote:
Americans always say that their country has such awful social problems, and this is why they have the gun crime they do, as opposed to other gun-owning nations like Canada or France. Firstly, what an embarrasing admission.
That's being intellectually dishonest if you at the same time acknowledge that other societies with the same (or higher) guns per capital stats have no where near the same stats involving violent crimes, or crimes involving guns.Quote:
Secondly, Americans are people just they same as everyone else. No more crazy or violent then the rest of the world.
Believe it or not violence DOES vary from society to society. So does crime.
It is absolutely linked to poverty, and all the stats our country has involving crime will show that poverty is the single most important factor in dictating how much crime a given district will have. This is true rurally, and urbanly... furthermore take a look at the cities that have the HIGHEST rate of violent crime and tell me what their economies are like.Quote:
It is always easier to blame it on the poor and the blacks, though...
Knives are designed to cut things, but I don't see your country banning them under that logic, and if they did I would seriously question the logic behind it.Quote:
2) A car is designed to get people from A to B. A gun is designed to kill people. If someone kills someone with a car, they are misusing it. If someone kills someone with a gun, even if it is an accident, the gun itself has performed the task it has been created for.
With all your points taken on board, I still cannot understand the need for such an unnecessary and lethal item being easily accessed by the general public.
Large knives are being phased out in this country, and you have to be over 18 before you can purchase any blade, even a kitchen paring knife.
The difference between knives and guns is that 1) a gun can inflict more damage and 2) it is very difficult to kill someone with a blade, whereas
shooting someone is pretty basic and does not require the same level of emotional envolvement.
Politics is supposed to be one part ideals and one part pragmatism. Just as harmful chemicals and food additives are banned for the good of the nation, it is the same with guns.
I cannot belive you really think that guns make anything safer. A we have heard from other posters, gun-owners are actually attractive targets for criminals, and most home-weopons get turned on their owners.
Guns only escalate the level of violence of a situation, which is one of the reasons Brit cops don't carry them.
TOPICAL ASIDE:
Right now the UK news outlets are full of a story of Millionnaire Chris Foster who has gone missing after (they suspect) he shot his wife and her lover with his legally owned shotgun. This dude owned a gun why? Oh yeah..for self-defence. When was it ever used in anger? By the owner himself against his own wife. Of course he could have killed them with a knife of otgher instrument, but would he have been so successful?
EDIT:
US is averaging about a 'columbine' a year. How many more incidents like that are you as a nation going to accept before you actually take sokme kind of action, rather than just pass the buck and blame the lastest scapegoat?
I don't believe guns are the cause of that problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
I completely understand why kids shoot up schools (understand, that doesn't mean I endorse shooting up schools, encourage shooting up schools, etc etc) having had a bad k-12 experience myself.
I don't see it as being a byproduct of guns, marilyn manson, doom2, rap music or any of that nonesense (hell after Columbine they were even trying to use "what clothes the shooters wore when they were in preschool" to escape goat what caused columbine)- what I believed caused columbine was the tendency of our schools to not give a shit when people repeatedly cross the line in terms of violence, abuse, harassment, and insults. Speaking to my own person experience, it was bad enough that the police had to step in on a regular basis because of the bodily injury I was receiving from bullies. Did the school care, do anything about it, or even pretend to stop it? Fuck no, in some cases the teachers themselves encouraged the behavior simply because I was different. And I'm not even talking about trans issues here, I was a target simply because of how different I looked in early k-12. That got me labeled as a target, and once that happened it stuck, moving, everything short of home schooling failed to make a difference.
I'm sure more students in our country die from suicides than ever have collectively from school shootings, even if the causes are often the same. Instead of trying to fix the problem, people escape goat it on guns thinking "ah, that's the reason why it happens..." That maybe the means in which students decide to react violent, but it isn't why they decide to do so.
Ever think about why people actually consider school shootings? It isn't just because "their family has guns laying around."
its all the same... in a every man for himself evironment where everyone is afraid of everyone else these problems will automatically arise and the widespread gun ownership caused by that fear will amplify the effects 11-foldQuote:
Originally Posted by SarahG
as expected from inhoustonQuote:
Deputies are searching for two gunmen behind a deadly home invasion at a north Harris County mobile home park.
Then why are they such a modern occurrence in our society? Why do societies with more guns per capital lack the school shooting stats that we have?Quote:
Originally Posted by muhmuh
Would anyone have honestly believed him if he did post a link at they very start?Quote:
Originally Posted by braveman