|
| Thread: Right to Self Defense, Gun Ownership, and Deterence of Crime |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20 30 40 50 55 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted January 07, 2012 02:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The woman's husband had died of lung cancer a week previously, on Christmas day. The scumbags had undoubtedly scoped out her home and said, "Yeah a single teenage mom...easy pickings..
According to what I read, the perpetrators were after the (deceased) husbands large supply of prescription narcotics.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just saying that if you possess a firearm, you should learn to use it properly and be familiar with it, no matter if you are a teenage mom or an ex-marine.
Exactly. However, the requirements of the laws in the given states seem to make that unnecessary as obviously you are free to kill (in the context of the situation - to shoot wherever you want) any trespassers as soon as they enter your house.
Anyway, the girl shot and killed, that's how the story ends. I still think that the whole situation was quite stupid (so apart from talking on the phone, she also had the time to barricade the door... I wonder if she managed to make a coffee and a few sandwiches while those two were breaking in) but probably her actions can be more of less justified.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 10:59 AM |
|
|
Next question: For the sake of the argument, if you allow ownership of weapons to defend yourself (and your family) IN YOUR HOME_
why don't you forbid carrying weapons OUTSIDE? Make ownership of weapons OUTSIDE a minimum 5 years penalty in prison. And don't even start with stuff like, you need a weapon to protect yourself OUTSIDE. What you need outside is a better police force with more patrols and a "de-ghetto-ization in your big cities.
If you feel the need to protect yourself outside, learn to defend yourself weaponless.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 11:34 AM |
|
|
^ Seriously, just give this guy his own subforum so he can be right as much as he likes, without anyone interfering.
Quote:
I wonder how do you feel after killing a person out of self defense? do you feel rather good or rather guilty about it? (after the relief of being in safety of course)
I'm not sure. I like to think I'd be sorry that someone wasted his life like that. Though my common sense would be with Salamandre, the Christian bit of me would probably go "goddamnit maybe it didn't have to turn out like this". We don't know until we shoot a junkie anyway.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 11:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Next question: For the sake of the argument, if you allow ownership of weapons to defend yourself (and your family) IN YOUR HOME_
why don't you forbid carrying weapons OUTSIDE?
So everybody has a gun in their home but aren't allowed to take it outside?
Wouldn't work in practic unless everybody were inspected every single time they walked out the door and now that would be a fascist society.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Next question: For the sake of the argument, if you allow ownership of weapons to defend yourself (and your family) IN YOUR HOME_
why don't you forbid carrying weapons OUTSIDE? Make ownership of weapons OUTSIDE a minimum 5 years penalty in prison. And don't even start with stuff like, you need a weapon to protect yourself OUTSIDE. What you need outside is a better police force with more patrols and a "de-ghetto-ization in your big cities.
If you feel the need to protect yourself outside, learn to defend yourself weaponless.
Because you need a weapon to protect yourself outside your house too.
The idea that you can press a button and a patrol of cops instantly appear with their guns drawn on the bad guy is rather bizzare. It may happen that way in cartoonland but not in the real world. In the real world you need to be able to defend yourself at a moment's notice and it may take the cops quite some time to get to your location.
The public has no need to fear an honest person carrying a gun. In fact, the public is much better off if an honest person is always armed. That person can no only defend himself but can defend others.
The founding fathers of the US recognized the right of self defense as an innate right. They said we have the right to "keep and bear arms." To bear is to carry. In fact they said citizens should be at all times armed, which I quoted earlier in the thread.
Quote:
If you feel the need to protect yourself outside, learn to defend yourself weaponless.
Sorry, JJ, but catching bullets in your teeth just does not happen outside Hollywood movies. And criminals are not going to pay attention to an "If you are armed you are scum" law. And if you are unarmed vs other weapons you are at a distinct distinct disadvantage as well. Not to mention an elderly person, a handicapped person, a sick person, ect, facing a physically fit large man like me whose bare hands are quite formidable weapons with or without martial arts training.
People should be allowed to carry fire arms for self defense and to whatever force they deem best against any criminal threatening themselves, their family, other innocents, or their property.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 12:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Next question: For the sake of the argument, if you allow ownership of weapons to defend yourself (and your family) IN YOUR HOME_
why don't you forbid carrying weapons OUTSIDE?
So everybody has a gun in their home but aren't allowed to take it outside?
Wouldn't work in practic unless everybody were inspected every single time they walked out the door and now that would be a fascist society.
Not so. Think about drink and drive. Lots of countries have a zero tolerance policy here. Sure, there ARE controls, but not anytime, anywhere - and no one talks about fascism, when you are not allowed to drink and drive and police makes spot checks.
Quote:
Because you need a weapon to protect yourself outside your house too.
I don't quote the rest because it's rather pointless. Who cares what people said 200 years ago? The world changes.
Anyway - you do NOT need a weapon to protect yourself outside.
a) There is the police; if the police is inept or ineffective, and you must fear that you have to defend yourself outside your home, why have a police at all? Do away with it and save everyone tax money.
Come to think of it, you already did that anyway. Police is busy fighting trafficking of sex and drugs - all-importantly - leaving the protection part somewhat be.
b) Carrying a gun outside means endangering the public: gunning around outside may harm innocents. Now think about drinking and driving, and think about drinking (or consuming any kind of drug) and carrying a gun in public.
c) You don't need a weapon to protect yourself outside, because you CANNOT protect yourself outside with a gun. You don't move around having a gun drawn, and if you suddenly look into the business end of some mugger(s)'s gun(s), the worst thing to try would be drawing a gun. The best thing to try and protect yourself is martial arts, because you don't need to draw a weapon, so your chances to actually do something against an attacker are WAY better than with a clumsy gun you have to draw and no experience with.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 06:32 PM |
|
|
How is it that Elodin is making more sense than JJ? Martial arts being better than a gun? Really?
Quote:
I wonder how do you feel after killing a person out of self defense? do you feel rather good or rather guilty about it?
Good, I would think. It is good to make an evil person suffer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 06:46 PM |
|
|
wow really?
that's a pretty medieval way of seeing things
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 07:07 PM |
|
|
|
doesn't that make you evil? and how do you know the other person was evil?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 07:11 PM |
|
|
I think it depends on why you had to slay another human.
If it was for self-defense or defense of a loved one, I would not lose sleep over it. If just me, it's better the assailant is dead than me. If I killed to protect a loved one, the assailant deserved his or her fate.
I think I would be uspet that things had gotten to the point where someone had to die.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How is it that Elodin is making more sense than JJ? Martial arts being better than a gun? Really?
Quote:
I wonder how do you feel after killing a person out of self defense? do you feel rather good or rather guilty about it?
Good, I would think. It is good to make an evil person suffer.
That's because you have no experience in these things.
You just need to look at the statistics. The United States crime rates are not those of a first world country.
Also, even though the crime rate is so high, and even though you can carry a weapon in the US - you never fread much about FAILED mugging attempts because the victim scared the perps off with a gun, right?
The thing is simply that you need EXPERIENCE in such situations, otherwise you are helpless. A soldier who has been actually fighting in a war (and no psychosis) may be able to handle it. Conversely perps are USED TO this kind of life. They may have been in prison already - they could be a different species, so far away they are from a normal person, with or without a gun.
Martial arts, on the other hand, give a person CONFIDENCE. Those people are still inferior in terms of experience, but they are much more likely to surpise a perp with a swift kick or disarming technique than with pulling a gun.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 07:48 PM |
|
|
|
You saw too many Steven Seagal movies.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 07, 2012 08:29 PM |
|
|
Steven Seagal?
My ex-brother in law has been a European full contact taekwondo champion - admittedly, this was 35 years ago, but it doesn't change the fact. He would look rather harmless with his 65 kilo weight, but you wouldn't believe seeing him exploding into action. You wouldn't want to mess with him. Ever. Gun or not.
The actual friend of my daughter is a kickboxer. I have to admit that this has a very reassuring effect on me - a lot more reassuring than if he was fiddling with weapons.
All in all I've known a couple of people versed in martial arts, and I would prefer being in the company of one any time to a guy with a gun. After all, a guy with a gun is just a guy without it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 12:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't quote the rest because it's rather pointless. Who cares what people said 200 years ago? The world changes.
Actually only one of my sentences had anything to do with the founding fathers, but feel free to dodge whatever points you don't wish to address.
Quote:
Anyway - you do NOT need a weapon to protect yourself outside.
a) There is the police; if the police is inept or ineffective, and you must fear that you have to defend yourself outside your home, why have a police at all? Do away with it and save everyone tax money.
Police can't be in every location 24 hours per day, JJ. That is unrealistic. Also, many factors affect how quickly police can respond to any call. And of course many Europeans have no concept about how wide open many places in the US are.
Quote:
Carrying a gun outside means endangering the public: gunning around outside may harm innocents.
No it does not. I have a concealed weapons permit. My gun has never jumped out of its holster and shot anyone. No being allowed to properly defend yourself certainly endangers everyone and emboldens criminals, adding even more danger to honest citizens.
Quote:
You don't need a weapon to protect yourself outside, because you CANNOT protect yourself outside with a gun. You don't move around having a gun drawn, and if you suddenly look into the business end of some mugger(s)'s gun(s), the worst thing to try would be drawing a gun. The best thing to try and protect yourself is martial arts, because you don't need to draw a weapon, so your chances to actually do something against an attacker are WAY better than with a clumsy gun you have to draw and no experience with.
Lol, you can protect yourself outside with a gun MUCH better than outside without a gun.
Also, you think the elderly and wheel chair bound should have to rely on hand to hand combat to fight off gun toting slimeballs who mean them harm?
Quote:
lso, even though the crime rate is so high, and even though you can carry a weapon in the US - you never fread much about FAILED mugging attempts because the victim scared the perps off with a gun, right?
Quite untrue. Many crimes are thwarted by an honest gun toting citizen. Here are a few examples.
Mugger shot in Wooster Square
Armed Samaritan shoots attacker and saves woman
Man at ATM shoots would be robbers
Jogger shot and killed mugger
Quote:
Baker was out jogging alone after midnight near his home in Tampa, Florida, when he was confronted by Mustelier and a 16-year-old youth.
The teen told told police Mustelier decided he wanted to rob Baker, telling him: 'I'm going to bam him.. I'm gonna knock him out.'
Baker told investigators he was suddenly confronted by Mustelier who punched him in the face.
With his lip cut and suffering blurred vision he said he pulled out a handgun that was fitted with a laser sight and fired eight times
Mustelier was hit four times with hollow pointed bullets fired from the .45calibre weapon.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346574/Jogger-Thomas-Baker-shot-dead-unarmed-mugger-released-charge.html#ixzz1ionuvpLV
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 12:56 AM |
|
|
"You can get a lot farther with a smile and a gun than you can with just a smile."
Al Capone
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 01:07 AM |
|
|
What else would you expect from the 3rd world country of America? If your police and social equality worked like a first world country, there wouldn't be any need of guns in the first place.
Now... you have poverty, desperate theifs, a weird social moral for the starved, and actual crime problems. Banning guns doesn't make any sense until you fix those problems.
Besides, how can I as a civilized citizen feel safe if some nutjob could walk around with a gun? That is the counterdilemma of "I feel safe because I have a gun".
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 01:54 AM |
|
|
it doesn't make me feel safer if people walk around with guns.
what's the difference with preparing for war? that means there is an imminent danger. or at least that's what they want you to believe.
that's not a way to solve the problem, because they have no interest in solving it. they only have interest in spreading fear. that's how they keep their power. then they can make you believe that thanks to them, you'll be safer.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 02:40 AM |
|
|
yeah looking at the US, transistioning out of those civil gun laws would probably be very hard since you already have a lot of crime and no wellfare services etc (crime is linked to socioeconomic background)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 08, 2012 08:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What else would you expect from the 3rd world country of America?
Sad, but true.
16-year-olds firing around with guns with laser target sights gun and handicapped carrying whatever artillery because they have to protect themselves?
What kind of a country is that?
By the way, in 2000 30% of all gunshot injuries were ACCIDENTAL:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
Lastly, the second amendment. It's clear, that the constitution grants the right of weapon ownership only with a view on the necessity of an able militia - that is, for the survival of a free state. It's not difficult to see that the founding fathers not only lived in a time and a country where there were many opportunities to be attacked, but where people had to be able to deal with all kinds of potential threats on their own. In times of an external threat there would be no time to build up AND TRAIN an army - people would have to know how to work a gun.
With professional soldiery and the invention of modern warfare, a militia isn't needed anymore (1). Nor are there any threats like Indian attacks on far-out farms, negro uprisings on cotton plantations or foreign countries invading on short notice (2).
Which means, every 6-year-old can see that the rulings of the Supreme Court are extremely doubtful.
But hey, if they had ruled differently, they would probably have been shot.
|
|
|
|
