|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted April 30, 2011 06:14 PM |
|
|
It's not a debate between legal or illegal, it's a debate between: useful or pointless.
And I gave a ton of arguments why it's pointless to count on guns for self defense. You gave pretty much none excluding a few "heroic" stories that prove... what, exactly?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You gave pretty much none excluding a few "heroic" stories that prove... what, exactly?
What do you mean what do they prove ? They prove that there are a few trigger happy people around who find the law to be the perfect excuse for them to use their dear weapons on people, I would rather have somebody take my TV and a couple of grands than go and explain some poor kid's mom that "I had to shoot him to protect my home, being the hero that I am"
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 06:26 PM |
|
|
Not to mention there's a ton of non-lethal weaponry you can defend yourself with. Even the dreaded taser, even though it can be lethal. The chance of killing a person with it are much lower than with regular gun tho. And Elodin's shotgun, given the big caliber, is pretty much 100% fatal.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 06:36 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 18:38, 30 Apr 2011.
|
If a troubled 15 year old kid who escaped his home, who has lived on the streets, hasnt been eating regulary, who has to break into people's houses to get something to eat, if a kid like that breaks into my house.... why would I tase him when I have 16 bullets in my clip and one in a chamber, tasing people is for Pu******ies man, matter of fact im thinking of placing a screaming baby a few meters inside my home, it might attract people and then it's a shooting party, oh yeah bring them silly human targets over, I need to see what this baby can do 
In the words of Nitsche - "SMH..."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 07:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not a debate between legal or illegal, it's a debate between: useful or pointless.
And I gave a ton of arguments why it's pointless to count on guns for self defense. You gave pretty much none excluding a few "heroic" stories that prove... what, exactly?
Actually, my opening post (the article) gave other examples of gun owners who protected themselves and addressed a number of points. I could certainly list a lot more instances of gun use but I think that would be a waste of my time. I have shown real world examples of people having guns protecting themselves. That would mean that possession of a gun by honest citizens is not useless or pointless. Guns can be quite useful in self-defense.
I have not yet commented on the article I opened the thread with. I will correct that by making comments on parts of the article that are relevant to your claims.
Quoting from the article I linked to in my initial post we can see that fear of an armed home owner being home reduces the risk of burglary of an occupied home. In places with strict gun control laws burglary of occupied homes is far more common that in places where a home owner is likely to be armed.
Quote:
International Comparison
It is axiomatic in the United States that burglars avoid occupied homes. As an introductory criminology textbook explains, "Burglars do not want contact with occupants; they depend on stealth for success." [FN8] Only thirteen percent of U.S. residential burglaries are attempted against occupied homes. [FN9] But this happy fact of life, so taken for granted in the United States, is not universal.
The overall Canadian burglary rate is higher than the American one, and a Canadian burglary is four times more likely to take place when the victims are home. [FN10]
In Toronto, forty-four percent of burglaries were against occupied homes, and twenty-one percent involved a confrontation with the victim. [FN11] Most Canadian residential burglaries occur at night, while American burglars are known to prefer daytime entry to reduce the risk of an armed confrontation. [FN12]
Research by the federal government's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention found that, based on 1994 data, American youths 10 to 17 years old had much higher arrest rates than Canadian youths for every category of violent and property crime. The lone exception was burglary, for which Canadian youths were one-third more likely to be involved. [FN13] In cities such as Vancouver, home invasion burglaries aimed at elderly people have become endemic, and murders of the elderly during those burglaries all too frequent. [FN14] Unfortunately, help from the government is not always available. In Quebec, the provincial police (Sureté du Québec) are under orders from their commander to reduce arrests for burglary, because the jails are full. [FN15]
*348
A 1982 British survey found fifty-nine percent of attempted burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN16] The Wall Street Journal reported:
Compared with London, New York is downright safe in one category: burglary. In London, where many homes have been burglarized half a dozen times, and where psychologists specialize in treating children traumatized by such thefts, the rate is nearly twice as high as in the Big Apple. And burglars here increasingly prefer striking when occupants are home, since alarms and locks tend to be disengaged and intruders have little to fear from unarmed residents. [FN17]
In Britain, seventy-seven percent of the population was afraid of burglary in 1994, compared to sixty percent in 1987. [FN18] The London Sunday Times, pointing to Britain's soaring burglary rate, calls Britain "a nation of thieves." [FN19] In the Netherlands, forty-eight percent of residential burglaries involved an occupied home. [FN20] In the Republic of Ireland, criminologists report that burglars have little reluctance about attacking an occupied residence. [FN21]
Of course, differences in crime-reporting and crime-recording behavior between nations limit the precision of comparative criminal data. Nevertheless, the difference in home invasion burglary rates between the United States and other nations is so large that it is unlikely to be a mere artifact of crime data quirks. [FN22]
*349
Why should American criminals display such a curious reluctance to perpetrate burglaries, particularly against occupied residences? The answer cannot be that the American criminal justice system is so much tougher than the systems in other nations. During the 1980s, the probability of arrest and the severity of sentences for ordinary crimes in Canada and Great Britain were at least as great as in the United States. [FN23] Could the answer be that American criminals are afraid of getting shot? The introductory American criminology textbook states, "Opportunities for burglary occur only when a dwelling is unguarded." [FN24] Why is an axiomatic statement about American burglars so manifestly not true for burglars in other countries.
Quote:
One out of thirty-one burglars has been shot during a burglary. [FN25] On the whole, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. [FN26] If we assume that the risk of prison provides some deterrence to burglary, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the equally large risk of being shot provides an equally large deterrent. In other words, private individuals with firearms in their homes double the deterrent effect that would exist if government-imposed punishment were the only deterrent.
When a burglar is as likely to be shot as he is to go to prison don't you think that is a deterrent to burglary?
Quote:
The researchers found that six percent of the sample population had used a firearm in a burglary situation in the last twelve months. [FN32] Extrapolating the polling sample to the national population, the researchers estimated that in the last twelve months, there were approximately 1,896,842 incidents in which a householder retrieved a firearm but did not see an intruder. [FN33] There were an estimated 503,481 incidents in which the armed householder did see the burglar, [FN34] and 497,646 incidents in which the burglar was scared away by the firearm. [FN35] In other words, half a million times every year, burglars were likely forced to flee a home because they encountered an armed victim.
Roughly half a million people in the surveyed year scared away a burglar with a gun in the US. That is a pretty significant number, not just a "few heroic stories."
Quote:
The most thorough survey of citizen defensive gun use in general (not just in burglaries) found that in well over ninety percent of incidents, a shot is never fired; the mere display of the gun suffices to end the confrontation. [FN43] The CDC study did not specifically ask whether a gun was fired. [FN44] Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that burglary DGU is similar to DGU in general, and that most incidents end with the burglar fleeing at the sight of the armed victim, rather than the victim shooting at the burglar.
Sound to me like it can help keep you safe if you carry a gun. Of course you should practice with the gun and you should obtain a license if it is required where you live.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 08:22 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 20:23, 30 Apr 2011.
|
 sounds like assaulting occupied houses is the national sport in those countries
you sure it isn't propaganda from the FN? 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, my opening post (the article) gave other examples of gun owners who protected themselves and addressed a number of points. I could certainly list a lot more instances of gun use but I think that would be a waste of my time. I have shown real world examples of people having guns protecting themselves. That would mean that possession of a gun by honest citizens is not useless or pointless. Guns can be quite useful in self-defense.
Nope. What you listed here is a mix of heroic-tales stitched together without any logic. I could probably find a group of women that defended themselves with a pencil against a rape; would that prove anything?
Try to understand my point: You don't prove anything by pointing to a few successful attempts. You completely and utterly ignored EVERYTHING I have written so far, such as:
a) The obvious part about all kinds of attacks being (usually) a surprise in which the gun is useless
b) The obvious part about the gun not being in your reach 24/7 making it a lottery whether you even manage to draw it
c) The lack of skill of "ordinary" humans, lack of balls and heavy psychological trauma they are risking after murdering a person
d) The fact that modern alarm systems are more than capable of protecting you better than your shotgun, with or without conjunction with dog(s)
e) The fact that you have, even if paranoid, a big assortment of non-lethal weaponry to choose from instead of a high-caliber gun that is almost certain to murder the troublemaker
f) Almost complete uselessness of guns @ street situations (the "rapes" and "mugs" you talk about).
and to sum up your points with a single answer:
Quote:
When a burglar is as likely to be shot as he is to go to prison don't you think that is a deterrent to burglary?
Check the crime rate in your country (legal guns), then check the crime rate in my country (illegal guns), then respond to your not-very-intelligent question yourself.
Hint: there don't seem to be a correlation between legal/illegal guns and crime rate.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 09:01 PM |
|
|
I once defended myself with a bicycle pump against two would be muggers while being drunk.
I usually carry a telescopic baton for self defence. See? No gun needed.
Seeing as americans are obsessed with firearms I fail to see the point of arguing about it with Elodin. Be smarter and just give way to the idiots. Let them kill eachother.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That would be completely missing the point.
But take a look, they are armed with UZI's, a automatic weapon of immense firepower.
They are wearing masks.
The fact they have uzis instead of knifes or normal guns implies that the gun enforcment is really lacks too.
I could point out even more faults too about the logic.
However, the problem is that you must first get the police AND the civilians to not carry not spread paranoia about firearms.
Just getting inn a "ban" would not work over night, it would take 10-20 years of slow cultural change if the cultural change was at a rapid rate.
Why do some people want to say the problem is with the police and the citizens? The problem is with the criminals. If every person in the world had 35 guns each but each person were honest there would no problem.
The problem is not with the honest people who have guns. The problem is not with the "paranoia" of people who don't want to be raped or mugged or murdered. The problem is not with the victim of crime or potential victim of crime being armed. Honest people don't rob stores or break into homes either with or without guns. The problem is with the people who chose to prey on other people. The human predators. Criminals.
A ban of firearms is not the way to stop crime. The majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. The solution is to get tough on crime not to restrict the ability of honest citizens to defend themselves.
Locking your door will not stop a criminal from breaking into your house. A "no trespassing" sign will not stop a criminal from trespassing. Criminals do not respect your locks and signs.
I think I made it clear:
If i only need a dagger to rape your face, i won't bother getting a gun.
When both sides sit with Ak-47s, there will be blood.
What honest folks want, and what honest folks want to do is irrelevant.
Basically, by lowering the "requirements" for what you need to go and mug, you lower the chance of something really nasty happens.
Besides, as you have said, they will do it regardless, but it is a lot better that it ends with police looking weird at criminals instead of them starting to shoot at each other.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 30, 2011 11:34 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 23:39, 30 Apr 2011.
|
you often get attacked by dudes with AK47? what do you keep in your house?
what about south africa? dudes are hiding in their palaces behind reinforced steel gates 3 meter high while people are dying from hunger in their streets, and wonder why they get attacked. though, I doubt the people dying from hunger are the ones getting assault rifles, they don't have enough money?
just saying there are cases where showing too much precautiousness can be understood as a provocation.
ok, what do you prefer, not protecting your house and getting robbed by an unarmed guy when you are in vacation, or protecting your house so much that a dangerous organized gang concludes that it is probably a valuable target?
who thought about the fact that buying a gun, and various protection devices might cost more than what a robber might steal?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 12:09 AM |
|
|
Fauch: Calling the police via alarms, the police getting there within minuttes, the entire case cleared up without me as a civilian having to lift a finger? That is my answer, the 3rd option.
Basically, I am ignoring the issue, but the problem and the end result is soo related that I can do that.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 01:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually, my opening post (the article) gave other examples of gun owners who protected themselves and addressed a number of points. I could certainly list a lot more instances of gun use but I think that would be a waste of my time. I have shown real world examples of people having guns protecting themselves. That would mean that possession of a gun by honest citizens is not useless or pointless. Guns can be quite useful in self-defense.
Nope. What you listed here is a mix of heroic-tales stitched together without any logic. I could probably find a group of women that defended themselves with a pencil against a rape; would that prove anything?
It would prove that if you are creative and don't panic you can use a lot of things to defend yourself. A gun is better for self defense than a pencil, however.
I gave instances of people defending themselves with guns, which proves gun possession for self defense is not useless or pointless. Also, the statistics show that over half a million people in the use scared away burglars with guns within a year's time. Therefore it is impossible that guns are useless for self defense.
Quote:
a) The obvious part about all kinds of attacks being (usually) a surprise in which the gun is useless
No they aren't. One of the examples in my post was about an elderly Hispanic man being choked to death by a mugger. He pulled a gun and killed the mugger.
That makes me wonder if you even bothered to read the cases and watch the videos.
Quote:
b) The obvious part about the gun not being in your reach 24/7 making it a lottery whether you even manage to draw it
But while it is in your reach you have something to defend yourself with. Further, why not allow honest people to carry guns with them everywhere? I would not be vehemently against having a few restricted areas where guns can't be possessed but those should be very few.
Quote:
c) The lack of skill of "ordinary" humans, lack of balls and heavy psychological trauma they are risking after murdering a person
Killing in self defense is not murder. I consider your statement to be spitting in the face of everyone who has ever been a victim of crime.
Like I said, everyone should practice with a gun if they intend to use one. Oh, and a shotgun is very easy to shoot for self defense. Just point it towards the intruder and pull the trigger. Of course unless you get a recoiless model you need to hold it properly (thus the practice) so it would fly out of your hand on the first shot. Although if you load it with buckshot you will most likely need only one shot unless there are multiple intruders. A shotgun will knock the intruder down and if by chance he manages to get up he will not do so quickly and you will have plenty of time to shoot him again if he does.
Quote:
d) The fact that modern alarm systems are more than capable of protecting you better than your shotgun, with or without conjunction with dog(s)
No they are not. I do recommend both alarm systems and a dog as I've said before. But those are not guarantees. A burglar can scope out your house (most do) and spend a little time getting your dog used to him like feeding him a little scrap of food every day or feed him something laced with poison or shoot him on the night of the crime.
Alarms are also not foolproof. Wires can be cut, power can go out. Also few people ever set the alarm while home. And you act as though everyone lives in a large city that has a large enough police force to respond quickly to an alarm. In America there are vast wide open spaces that are sparsely populated. There is no patrol car that can get to those residents quickly.
Plus even a matter of a few minutes can be the difference between life and death.
Quote:
e) The fact that you have, even if paranoid, a big assortment of non-lethal weaponry to choose from instead of a high-caliber gun that is almost certain to murder the troublemaker
Oh, please. While many things can make weapons to use in a tight spot nothing beats a shotgun for home defense.
What do you think the odds are of a 78 year old man being able to fight off an intruder if he has no gun? What about somebody in a wheelchair? What about somebody with an arm in a cast? Someone bedridden?
Quote:
f) Almost complete uselessness of guns @ street situations (the "rapes" and "mugs" you talk about).
Sorry, they are not. I already mentioned one example in this post about an elderly man being choked to death while being mugged who managed to draw his handgun and kill the mugger.
Quote:
Check the crime rate in your country (legal guns), then check the crime rate in my country (illegal guns), then respond to your not-very-intelligent question yourself.
Hint: there don't seem to be a correlation between legal/illegal guns and crime rate.
I already showed statistics how burglars prey upon people in their homes in nations/states where there are strict gun laws.
The statistics clearly show that in places where burglars think the home owner is likely to be armed they try to burglarize only unoccupied homes.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 02:05 AM |
|
|
Causes of accidental deaths in the US
As you see, the number of accidental deaths from firearms is relatively small. You could save a lot more people's lives just by getting them to pay attention to where they are stepping.
Slips,trips, and falls account for 13,322 deaths per year
Gun accidents 776.
Clicky
740 people die in the US per year from riding bicycles.
Ban bicycles!
A whoping 5,870 pedestrians die per year in accidents. Ban walking anywhere near where there is other means of transportation!
Clicky
Quote:
The study found 1,676 Americans were reported to have drowned in a tub during this five-year period, an average of 335 a year. Infants, very young children and the elderly are at risk, but more than half of all tub deaths are among able-bodied people between the ages of 5 and 64.
Ban bathtubs!
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 04:05 AM |
|
|
well...
Quote:
where victims often drink or take drugs while soaking in hot water
|
|
Warlord
Famous Hero
Lord of Image Spam
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 04:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I already mentioned one example in this post about an elderly man being choked to death while being mugged who managed to draw his handgun and kill the mugger.
So? He got lucky. Not everyone is.
____________
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 05:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Won't work this way. It would just change muggings to killings. If they know you have a gun they'd shoot you before you can do anything and only rob you after that.
By, "You don't know who will have a faster draw", I meant the victim, the people outside of the alley, the people looking down from the windows, the people walking their dog, etc, etc.
Let's say you are a mugger and you do kill the victim before he knows you are there. You just shot a rather loud weapon and killed someone very publicly. You have just become the target of 65 people, minimum. Your gun has a chamber of twelve bullets (Well, eleven now). Are you rethinking your plan yet? And that was only a sparsely populated city...
But as a said, everyone would have to have a gun.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 05:56 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 05:58, 01 May 2011.
|
Quote:
Causes of accidental deaths in the US
As you see, the number of accidental deaths from firearms is relatively small. You could save a lot more people's lives just by getting them to pay attention to where they are stepping.
Slips,trips, and falls account for 13,322 deaths per year
Gun accidents 776.
Clicky
740 people die in the US per year from riding bicycles.
Ban bicycles!
A whoping 5,870 pedestrians die per year in accidents. Ban walking anywhere near where there is other means of transportation!
Clicky
Quote:
The study found 1,676 Americans were reported to have drowned in a tub during this five-year period, an average of 335 a year. Infants, very young children and the elderly are at risk, but more than half of all tub deaths are among able-bodied people between the ages of 5 and 64.
Ban bathtubs!
makes perfect sense  750 die of gun accidents but it's nothing compared to car accidents so gun accidents casualties are irrelevant ... the best logic ever !!!!!
hey, here's another one, let's make murder legal, after all less people die each year of being murdered than because of smoking... since numbers don't lie, if smoking is legal so should murder be, right ? I mean that's the logic isn't it ? who ever claims less victims is less severe hence OK isn't it ?
What a dumb logic every day two kids die because of gun accidents in america only BUT it's ok because more die in another manner.... My bad, forgot for a second im in an Inca culture where sacrificing children is ok as long as their numbers are below those of other accidents, God forbid they'd actually apply logic that aims at avoiding deaths of innocent children... WOW, and it's the same guy who claims he's christian 500 kids a year is a price he's willing to pay to have a gun... Jesus 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 10:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It would prove that if you are creative and don't panic you can use a lot of things to defend yourself. A gun is better for self defense than a pencil, however.
And if you are strong and with lightning reflexes you may knock people down with a single fist strike.
Blah blah blah. Conditional defense = weak. The chance of you panicking in dire situation - statistically - is MASSIVE. IF you have EVER trained anything, you would know that. But you just throw theory around forums. Great.
Quote:
I gave instances of people defending themselves with guns, which proves gun possession for self defense is not useless or pointless.
let's mimic your pointless argument to show you how useless it is.
Focus please.
clicky
See? I gave you example of women taught about defending themselves with a pen which proves pen possession for self defense is not useless or pointless.
Do you see how weak your logic is here now?
Just because something CAN be used doesn't mean there's a big CHANCE of EVER using it, let alone using it CORRECTLY.
Quote:
No they aren't. One of the examples in my post was about an elderly Hispanic man being choked to death by a mugger. He pulled a gun and killed the mugger.
That makes me wonder if you even bothered to read the cases and watch the videos.
That makes me wonder if you ever tried thinking about what I wrote. I gave an example too, which shows how useless any weapon is in surprise situation. Why is your example any better than mine?
Use common logic. What's more probable - that you would obey the attacker's every whim feeling a knife against your ribs, or that you would pull your gun out and kill him?
It's ALWAYS more probable you will get surprised. And I gave you even the precise range at which unless you're a master marksman, you WILL NOT be able to ready your gun before you get hit, grabbed or stabbed. For an average man FROM POLICE, it's 7-9 meters. Now, non-police/army guy, much more prone to panic... let's see.. >_>
Quote:
But while it is in your reach you have something to defend yourself with. Further, why not allow honest people to carry guns with them everywhere? I would not be vehemently against having a few restricted areas where guns can't be possessed but those should be very few.
Because honest guys get drunk and high, let their tempers lose and get into fights. Some people just don't control their emotions too well. Struck by rage, they just might kill whomever they have argument with. Ever saw two rage-struck drivers in an accident? Give them guns. yeah. I think you can picture the outcome.
Quote:
Killing in self defense is not murder. I consider your statement to be spitting in the face of everyone who has ever been a victim of crime.
Let's be honest: I don't give a damn about your opinion here. it's not a fact, it's merely how you see it. And I don't care how you see it. To me, if there are other options like taser, deliberately killing a person is a murder. Getting a high-caliber rifle just to ensure the murder, like you did, is even worse.
Quote:
Like I said, everyone should practice with a gun if they intend to use one. Oh, and a shotgun is very easy to shoot for self defense. Just point it towards the intruder and pull the trigger. Of course unless you get a recoiless model you need to hold it properly (thus the practice) so it would fly out of your hand on the first shot. Although if you load it with buckshot you will most likely need only one shot unless there are multiple intruders. A shotgun will knock the intruder down and if by chance he manages to get up he will not do so quickly and you will have plenty of time to shoot him again if he does.
Seriously, "just point it towards the intruder and pull the trigger" applies to every gun, and guess what, people still suck with those. A shotgun will not only knock the intruder down, but it will scatter his brains all around your room if you manage to hit. I'd like to see your reaction to that. Seriously, if you wouldn't break down after seeing that, I'd say there's something wrong with you.
Quote:
No they are not.
You don't prove something by saying "no". I install those things. They are highly reliable, actually more reliable than your shotgun.
Quote:
I do recommend both alarm systems and a dog as I've said before. But those are not guarantees. A burglar can scope out your house (most do) and spend a little time getting your dog used to him like feeding him a little scrap of food every day or feed him something laced with poison or shoot him on the night of the crime.
That's a bit paranoid. Trying to well-prepare for everything? What if he brings a tank then? Your shotgun will not suffice. Time to get a bazooka.
Quote:
Alarms are also not foolproof. Wires can be cut, power can go out.
You clearly know nothing of modern systems, don't you.
Since, as I mentioned before, I install those things, let me enlighten you.
You can use wireless if you wish. If you don't, the wires will be put into your wall. I have a hard time picturing someone drilling in your wall to cut the cord.
Power can go out as much as it pleases, alarm system are not powered up by household power of 120/130/140 V (don't know the exact value for US), they use their own power source which if you haven't forgotten to change once every few years, never goes out.
As for reliability: The never sets use advanced movement and heat detection that's just impossible for a common burglar to overcome. What's better, there's no human factor in it, so there's no stress kicking in.
Quote:
Also few people ever set the alarm while home. And you act as though everyone lives in a large city that has a large enough police force to respond quickly to an alarm. In America there are vast wide open spaces that are sparsely populated. There is no patrol car that can get to those residents quickly.Plus even a matter of a few minutes can be the difference between life and death.
The dialer was just an example. You can install other security systems to connect with your alarm set if you're paranoid, there are many extensions.
Quote:
Oh, please. While many things can make weapons to use in a tight spot nothing beats a shotgun for home defense.
What do you think the odds are of a 78 year old man being able to fight off an intruder if he has no gun? What about somebody in a wheelchair? What about somebody with an arm in a cast? Someone bedridden?
Someone with an arm in a cast using shotgun? Are you kidding? Want him to smash his arm to the next town? The recoil is too much to handle for broken bones. Or a single hand. Unless you're Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I thought we're talking bout average people.
"nothing beats" - perhaps, but not everyone wants to murder the opponent like you. Or "kill" the opponent if you're touchy with definitions, whatever. Not all people are as ok as you on taking life. Even if the guy's an aggressor.
Quote:
Sorry, they are not. I already mentioned one example in this post about an elderly man being choked to death while being mugged who managed to draw his handgun and kill the mugger.
I already gave you a pen example above which shows a woman is perfectly capable or defending with one. Get a pen. NOW. It increases your chances.
Quote:
I already showed statistics how burglars prey upon people in their homes in nations/states where there are strict gun laws.
The statistics clearly show that in places where burglars think the home owner is likely to be armed they try to burglarize only unoccupied homes.
Do those statistic show how much better is it to install a security system? I guess not.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Lumske_Beaver
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 02:13 PM |
|
|
Since arguing whether firearms are beneficial or not I want to point to these statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I do not think that that it is a coincidence that the US has higher rates of firearm-related deaths and intentional homicide than all western European countries (who by the way has the lowest intentional homicide rates by regions). Western European countries pursue a policy where only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors (stringent rules apply for these) may obtain licenses for firearms.
It is funny that people, who argue that general right to ownership of firearms increases their opportunities for self-defense, does not see that it also greatly increases the opportunities for criminals to obtain firearms. Thus firearms are only useful against the threat they pose and create if people have right to possess them.
If it is illegal to possess firearms unless you have special licenses or qualifications it is far more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms and the threat to everybody is substantially lower. Let me point to countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Scotland, England. Also notice the homicide rates of the US (7.07 ) and those of most European countries (below 1 esp. the Scandinavian countries who all are below 0.5).
All numbers in one per 100,000 population.
Such significant and consistent differences are not coincidental, which lead me to conclude that easier (or more free, if you wish) availability of firearms result in a proportional higher death rate related to firearms. A beneficial medium for self-defense? If you believe that higher death rates are beneficial, I suppose so.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2011 02:19 PM |
|
|
|
well, maybe if those 7.07 guys were robbers
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
