|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 20 30 ... 39 40 41 42 43 ... 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted February 10, 2013 02:07 PM |
|
|
If you live in a place where the news will not bring you almost the entire story, the paper was not worth reading in the first place.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 10:57 AM |
|
|
Another homeowner saves himself and his family from a home invader. Maybe the homeowner will invest in a shotgun instead of relying on his handgun for home defense. The home invader was able to tackle the home owner even after being shot (or did the homeowner miss? The report is not clear) with the pistol. If the home owner had used a shotgun with 00 buckshot the home invader would not have been able to tackle him.
Clicky
[quote}
An Washington state homeowner shot a drugged-out intruder who entered his home while he was asleep with his wife early Sunday.
KPTV.com reports that the suspect, Brian L. Creed, entered the home and started walking down a hallway toward the homeowner, who was standing outside his bedroom door.
When the 24-year-old homeowner told the suspect to stop, Creed allegedly charged the homeowner, prompting him to fire a shot at the intruder, the station reported.
Creed then allegedly tackled the homeowner and the two were involved in a physical altercation until the homeowner was able to hold the suspect at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
Investigators told KPTV.com that Creed had recently moved into a nearby house and admitted to having used methamphetamine earlier in the day.
Creed was reportedly treated at a nearby hospital. The homeowner was not injured.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 11:11 AM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 04:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, well.
Happiness is a warm gun - or not?
One thing is certain. Deaths from guns used by law abiding citizens is not increasing.
Liberals with their refusal to allow violent criminals to be locked up for long are causing an increase in gun death. Liberals refusing to allow the border to be secured and thus allowing drug violence to spill across the border are increasing gun violence. Liberals indoctrinating children in public schools with the idea that right and wrong don't exist are causing an increase in gun violence.
Neither lunatics nor criminals will obey gun control laws and both will find a means to murder if they have no guns.
____________
Revelation
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted February 12, 2013 04:29 PM |
|
Edited by GunFred at 16:32, 12 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
One thing is certain. Deaths from guns used by law abiding citizens is not increasing.
Neither lunatics nor criminals will obey gun control laws and both will find a means to murder if they have no guns.
Your current gun laws allows non-law abiding citizens to purchase or easily get their hands on guns. If you will not ban guns near altogether like more civilized nations with less crime, then at least you should support gun control laws that only allows people with stainless violent criminal record to own and carry guns.
Quote:
Liberals indoctrinating children in public schools with the idea that right and wrong don't exist are causing an increase in gun violence.
Obviously that is much worse than indoctrinating children to believe that christianity is right while pagans and atheists are going to hell... (sarcasm)
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 13, 2013 01:53 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 01:53, 13 Feb 2013.
|
I just want to remind everyone that this is not a place for spam. It is not a place for posts that merely consist of off topic one-liners, silly videos, stray images, or what have you. I have purged the last few days of the worst such posts and request that if you don't have any thoughtful discussion to add, then please do not post here. This goes for every topic in the OSM.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 14, 2013 10:35 PM |
|
|
Many times, in this thread, the discussion evolves into something along the lines of Guns vs. Material artist, etc. People use guns for protection, and I'd like to share a tragic news with you, which illustrate the absurdness of it. Something probably almost all gun owners fear, to use their gun against the wrong target.
"clickly"
Imagine if in stead of a gun he had used some non-lethal way of pacifying her. What's even more absurd is that when it comes to wild animal, we actually do just that, use a non-lethal way of pacifying. We only kill animals if we think they're targeting humans on purpose, otherwise we sedate and release. Why don't we do the same with humans? No guns, no material arts (good luck with your karate moves against an elephant ), plain and simple human (meant positively) treatment.
Some say because the dose regulation is difficult, it's very easy for the injection to be lethal, but isn't a gun shot also lethal? I know there are many other reasons and it's futile for me to try to list them all, especially since I've no idea if my counter arguments are even worthwhile, but I hope it'll at least give inspiration for thought. I am fully in for protecting yourself, your loved ones, your possessions, etc., but when you end up killing in the process, I can't support it any longer.
Do you think US ever will replace their protective systems from guns to something else? In 2015 the US military will be 33% automated robots (not the ones you think about Zenofex), will those robots also carry weapons? If we get a robot vs. robot war, is a gun really the most effective mean, or would an EMP not be better? Will we in the future have to fear invaders in the form of humans or proxies in the form of robots? Why can't we just put up easy controllable traps which, yeah, traps the enforcer? We saw a lot of stuff which could be done in the Home Alone movies, but I'm sure we could come up with much better systems which doesn't have to be so easily failing.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 12:49 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:49, 15 Feb 2013.
|
|
I really can't buy the whole "The people need guns to overthrow the government in the case where it gets controlled by a Sith Lord!" argument. It might have worked in the 18th century but face it, today your government spends - by FAR - the most money on the military in the world. You have the most advanced equipment, bombs, missiles, tanks and planes. You have nukes and drones. A bunch of hillbillies with shotguns would end up becoming mincemeat.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 09:05 AM |
|
|
the protest of a certain gun owner is beginning to sound like my uncles protest for keeping his satin flairs.
that is all.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 09:33 AM |
|
|
Btw - I've heard more than one person in here give the argument that small arms are no longer a worthwhile backstop from preventing abusive governments from rising to power. I don't really think it holds much water and here's why: the enforcement of government, assuming people don't just comply willingly, comes from police and military, aka: human beings. The military might have nukes, aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks, drones, jets, and all sorts of other cool toys at their disposal, but all of that big stuff is only going to be so valuable for trying to control a dissenting population. It's very unlikely that the government - even one that has gotten out of control and become autocratic - is going to just turn entire neighborhoods and cities to smithereens, and if it does, it poses increasingly severe risks of dissension within its own police and military. In order to be successful, a government needs to actually control a more-or-less stable population in order to function and prosper, and it isn't going to be able to do that if people are armed and disobedient. Using the big toys the military has at its disposal to try to quell unrest is kind of like trying to sculpt a snowman with a flamethrower. It's overkill and it's clumsy and it will more than likely either lead to a collapse of the corrupt government or at least civil war, where the military is divided against itself, not to mention the masses will become more unified than ever. Look at Syria. The only reason Assad hasn't had his dick snapped off and jammed down his trachea is because of a combination of desperate bribes and the fact that the Shia and Christian populations are understandably pissing their pants over what might happen once the Sunni majority seize control, so they haven't so much joined in on the action.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 12:12 PM |
|
|
Dude, your government IS out of control - and for a long time. The indicator is the amount of "classified" information and government agencies that run "secret" ops, and also the amount of money that the government is spending (and corporations earn), especially in the military area.
It's just that a sizable majority of the population also has a lot to lose, and as long as a majority continues having a lot to lose. nothing will happen anyway.
Public disobedience of a majority would need a massive communication attempt, and it won't take long anymore, until the governments will have the technical means for complete overwatch. Which means that the afore mentioned government agencies would simply take out the leaders and organisators of any such attempt on the suspicion of planning terrorist attacks which would cancel their civil rights.
In short, if you really think that a gun in the closet is some sort of insurance against governments "going rogue", you've stopped living on the planet Earth.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 01:08 PM |
|
|
A gun is certainly effective for personal and home defense as statistics and individual cases prove beyond any reasonable doubt.
A well armed population IS a safeguard for an out of control government. Most of the military would not obey Obama he decided to seize all power and ordered the military turned on the American people because most of the people who serve in the military are conservatives who do not worship Obama or believe in his leftist ideologies. And some states (Texas for instance) have sizable militaries of their own. The armed forces of Texas + the armed population of Texas would present a sizable problem for an out of control Obama trying to quell uprisings across the nation.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 01:28 PM |
|
|
|
It looks like you've lost it completely now: the military is NOT the population, and what YOU are talking about is a MILITARY COUP, which is something the population would be supposed to disobey AS WELL against with the support of their closet guns.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 04:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A well armed population IS a safeguard for an out of control government. Most of the military would not obey Obama he decided to seize all power and ordered the military turned on the American people because most of the people who serve in the military are conservatives who do not worship Obama or believe in his leftist ideologies. And some states (Texas for instance) have sizable militaries of their own. The armed forces of Texas + the armed population of Texas would present a sizable problem for an out of control Obama trying to quell uprisings across the nation.
So what do you do if the Army decides to take over power? And there is the problem.
And: Even if guns where banned, there would be enough factories supplying the 3rd worlds wars, and enough licenses gun enthusiasts and hunters to start a militia anyhow.
Its a rather poor argument.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 05:35 PM |
|
|
I can't believe someone can honestly believe that armed civilians can stop a regular army.
Last time I checked, they didn't have stealth bombers, tanks and nuclear weaponry in their cabinets.
Either way, what do you think of Pistorius' "home defence" attempt?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 06:26 PM |
|
|
The whole Pistorius thing is going to highlight the ultra liberal uber-rage of 'guns kill' lobby, without addressing the situation in South Africa where most people living in these gated communities, often do so with exactly the same mentality as Pistorius ...... house invasions are a serious problem and house owners defend themselves with an arsenal most End of the World Preppers would be proud of.
However, I am a member of a gun club. No I don't own my own gun. Why do I go, because I find it fun. Do I think I should carry a gun ... 'what the hell for?'. If someone is going to wish me harm there is precious little I can do about it, without bringing my own gun into the fray (which would probably get taken off me without much of a fight or some innocent bystander would cop a stray bullet).
But unfortunately it sounds to me like Pistorius was a bit gung-ho with his attitude towards guns anyway, if his Twitter spewings are anything to go by. According to the news, he shot her four times through a bathroom door.
I find it hard to believe that after only 3 months of dating, he would be crazy enough or peeved off enough with her to contemplate blasting the bejesus out of her on Valentines Day. And my brain is telling me this has got to be a horrible accident.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 06:41 PM |
|
|
I feel bad for the guy. He was the "Blade Runner". a cyborg symbol of overcoming disabilities and reach the top. The next day his life is in ruin, his girlfriend is dead by his own hands along with his career...
And then think about all the countless of families all over the world who lost beloved members in tradgic gun accidents. Hunters who shot their best friends, fathers shooting their sons, children shooting their siblings...
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 06:53 PM |
|
|
|
1 shoot is accident, 4 isn't. Had him only his fists, he would probably disfigured her or blown the door before calming, but he had a gun and toyed with. Now he will have a lot of time to think about.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 07:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It looks like you've lost it completely now: the military is NOT the population, and what YOU are talking about is a MILITARY COUP, which is something the population would be supposed to disobey AS WELL against with the support of their closet guns.
It appears to me that your ability to comprehend what you read is somewhat lacking today, JJ. Stay up too late?
Anyways, I did not call the military the population. Others, including you, were saying everyone owning guns would do nothing to prevent the government from squashing them if it wanted to. I pointed out the military is made up of mainly conservatives who would not obey an order to squash the public and that some states, such as Texas, have a sizable military of their own, and that Obama would have a tough time trying to quell a large uprising against a power seize given those facts plus a well armed population. NOW do you understand what I said?
Quote:
Either way, what do you think of Pistorius' "home defence" attempt?
Pistorius appears to have a history of domestic violence and him shooting his girlfriend through the bathroom door four times is not "home defense."
Looks to me like she ran in the bathroom to try to save herself and this time he took a gun to her rather than his fists since he could not reach her to beat her up.
It is interesting how many people have said they felt sorry for the killer but nobody said they felt sorry for the victim or her family. Sad.
Clicky
Quote:
Early reports of the shooting suggested Pistorius may have mistaken Steenkamp for an intruder, but police said neighbors had heard noises before the shots and there had been previous "domestic" incidents at the house.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 15, 2013 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
nobody said they felt sorry for the victim or her family. Sad.
Well: you get to know who you date, isn't it? The guy was clearly violent, armed, but also had a few millions which could explain her closing eyes on the essential. No luck this time, she got the worse from him.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
|
|
