Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

[Sander]

Sander, like I said, it's my home. Who are you to say how I should defend it? And, yeah, hello, I'm not going to shoot the next moron who comes in accidentally or something, but if someone intends me or my family harm, or to take away from me or my family, then I will waste them, they should know better. So don't tell me I shouldn't kill them. If they decide to run after they see me with my gun, or even see me or someone else in the house not assisting them, then I will let them, but I'll fire a few shots at him anyway. It's my home, and you can't say how I should defend it.

Ahem, the law is there for a reason, you know. It's there to prevent you from doing things you shouldn't do. If you're threatened, then yes, you should be allowed to shoot them, but only in a proportional response. It may be your home, but you do not and should not have unlimited means to defend it. Shooting someone through the head because he stole some money, for instance, is a completely unproportianate response(note that I'm not saying that you would do such a thing).

Secondly, I read every post in this topic, but since I haven't read the past ones in a while, I forgot some of them, so, sorry. But I stated the same thing awhile back too, saying we need to restrict some guns and those who can own them. All I need for home protection is just a handgun, not an AK rifle or something. I may collect them (rifles and such), but if they were to be made illegal, I would give them up, hoping for some money back, but I would still give them up. But I wouldn't give up my tool to defend my home. Sure I could use a knife, but my chances of being killed or injured, or my family's chance, are much higher.

Could you pleae read it again then? Because I've also said from the beginning of this thread that you should be allowed to have a hand-gun to defend yourself.

Thirdly, drugs can affect the way you think you know. The gun is the tool, the drug is the influence. Like people said, it's the influence that in almost all cases, causes the crimes. Drugs, books, ideas, all influences.

Are you implying that we should ban books and ideas as well?? I certainly hope not...

And it also strongly depends on the type of drug-but lets not cotinue that here. I'm going to have to make a new thread about drugs in general, though....just found out about something interesting.

Also, a gun is not the only tool at the criminal's disposal you know?

Your point being? It's the most convenient tool for a criminal...

 

[megatron]

Ahem, the law is there for a reason, you know. It's there to prevent you from doing things you shouldn't do. If you're threatened, then yes, you should be allowed to shoot them, but only in a proportional response. It may be your home, but you do not and should not have unlimited means to defend it. Shooting someone through the head because he stole some money, for instance, is a completely unproportianate response(note that I'm not saying that you would do such a thing).

Why? It's not like he's helping society. If I caught a thief or anything similair in my home I'd shoot them if I had a gun. If I had a bit more time I'd try and beat them to death or something similair.

 

[welsh]

I think if you are going to use violence, might as well get personal and hands on. Beat him to death.

This is why I think hunting is often a poor excuse for a sport. I mean if you really want to prove yourself against a deer, go hand to hand. Little more sympathetic to bow hunting, especially if you are going after bear.

Stick an arrow in a bear, if you don't kill him and he comes after you, now that's a sport.

Let me also add that I think that the rule of hunting should be that you have to eat what you kill. Of course if your idea of hunting is shooting people, that could raise some ethical problems. Worse if you sell what you catch as meat (I hear we taste like pork- but maybe that's because we eat too much fast food).

 

[Casca]

Unfortunatly urban violence is a disturbing thing. Those which end up in the inner cities have few choices in what to do with their time. Most of it can be blamed on the influnces which constantly bombard them, ie, music, movies, and local propaganda about the man.

They are shown that the only way to get ahead is thru guns and violance more often than hard work and school.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Actually Sander, a knife is much more convienant, a gun makes it easier. You can get a knife anywhere.

Also, I wasn't saying we should ban books, I was just stating that the tool is only the tool. Sure accidents may happen, but hell, I can accidentally stab someone with a pencil for crying out loud.

I don't think that we should provide unlimited means to defend a home either, just let us keep a small firearm like a pistol or such. And I KNOW you didn't say we should ban them, I was just saying. I found that funny though, unlimited means I mean, ha ha, imagine, nukes for home (as in house not country) defense?

I would aim to bring him/her down Sander. If I kill him/her, oh well, their f***ing fault. If I don't, too bad, makes things more complicated, revenge is a scary thing.

I also think hunting for sport is retarded. NOTICE, I said SPORT not for FOOD. If you want deer meat, then I don't care. But I think that putting trophies of animal heads/buts/whatever else suites your fancy on the wall is retarded. Like Welsh said "OOOOO I shot that deer all by my itty, bitty, little self!" Woop-de-f***ing-duu! I hate it when my friend wants to show me his trophies! One of these days, I'm going to yell at that kid so much.

 

[APTYP]

Sander: Halt! What are you doing on my property?
Thief: I have come to steal your shit.
Sander: Are you going to kill me?
Thief: No.
Sander: Oh, ok, but be quick - I called the police and they'll be here in half an hour.

 

[Casca]

lol.. If a theif told me they just wanted my stuff around the house and it was true I'd go get the U-haul myself.

 

[Sander]

I never said I wouldn't hold the thief at gun point. I j ust said that I think shooting someone is generally not a good idea.

Meg: Seriously, would you really kill a man just because he broke into your home? I'm sorry, but that I just can't understand.

I really don't have anything to say about what the rest of you posted now, though. Methinks it's all ghood...

 

[APTYP]

Too bad most people won't stop the thief and demand to know their intentions. They'll be more concerned with protecting their loved ones than the precious life of a criminal, or whatever.

 

[megatron]

Meg: Seriously, would you really kill a man just because he broke into your home? I'm sorry, but that I just can't understand.

If he was just looking around and had picked the door I wouldn't mind (like some ninja or something), probably ask him if he wants a drink. Otherwise I'd at least assault him/her. If I could get away with it I'd murder them.

It'd only be some little shit anyway, no great loss.

 

[Sander]

Too bad most people won't stop the thief and demand to know their intentions. They'll be more concerned with protecting their loved ones than the precious life of a criminal, or whatever.

What the?
A) I NEVER said that I wouldn't protect them, I merely said that SIMPLY SHOOTING a thief is morally reprehensible.
B) I also never pulled threatening loved ones into it. It's a burglar, not necessarily a fucking murderer.

If he was just looking around and had picked the door I wouldn't mind (like some ninja or something), probably ask him if he wants a drink. Otherwise I'd at least assault him/her. If I could get away with it I'd murder them.

It'd only be some little shit anyway, no great loss.

So basically, you have no respect for human life. Woohoo.

 

[APTYP]

How can you protect your family if you can't even use lethal force? Don't you watch TV? Burglars stopped being scaredy cats who run out as soon as they hear someone. Now they pull a gun or a knife, tie you up, then kick you till you tell them your credit card PIN. Your unwillingness to put the lives of the family before life of a home invader clearly indicates what's more important for you.

 

[Sander]

How can you protect your family if you can't even use lethal force? Don't you watch TV? Burglars stopped being scaredy cats who run out as soon as they hear someone. Now they pull a gun or a knife, tie you up, then kick you till you tell them your credit card PIN. Your unwillingness to put the lives of the family before life of a home invader clearly indicates what's more important for you.

CAN YOU NOT BLOODY READ??:

A) I NEVER said that I wouldn't protect them, I merely said that SIMPLY SHOOTING a thief is morally reprehensible.

STOP SAYING THAT I WOULD PUT THE LIFE OF A BURGLAR MY FAMILY'S AND BLOODY READ WHAT I SAY!!

All I EVER said was that just shooting a burglar, without trying to get him to stop by holding him at gun-point, or without any threat by him at all, is morally unjustifiable, and should be illegal. Now, unless you people learn to READ what I say, I'm going to steer clear of this bullshit.

 

[megatron]

So basically, you have no respect for human life. Woohoo.

There the ones with no respect for human life. I care plenty for lives of humans and animals. But it doesn't mean I'd let someone get away with stealing off me, espeacially with the shitty justice system that's in place at the moment.

Also: shooting someone is a lot quicker and also would probably have a lower chance of killing them than stabbing them or beating the to death. If you're bothered about there feelings, perhaps you could take that into account.

What situation would it take for you, sander, to kill somebody? Self-defense? Revenge? War?

 

[Montez]

Just to chime in, I think criminals should be treated much, much harsher than they are now. The US legal system is a pathetic joke, so if some scumbag gets treated with excessive force by a civilian I'm not going to shed any tears for them. Fuck reasoning with them and being civil with them - they signify their disrespect for it when they decide to break the written and unwritten conventions of society. You might feel like the better man for taking the "moral high ground", but that's all that's accomplished. If someone's prepared to take your life, beat the hell out of you or worse, you'd better be prepared to do more than talk to them. They're parasites, and they should be treated as such.

 

[Gwydion]

Oh, and here I was thinking that this was going to be a pleasant and intelligent conversation with you Gwydion. Do you really want to call this hysterical? Or that these are non-issues? I see hardly anything hysterical in anything I have posted here.

It's in the very arguments that you post: you talk about increasing popularity of these weapons with groups likely to commit crimes with these weapons, militias was the example you gave; you talk about rising usage in crime when statistically you're dealing with 1% of crime anyway, so their usage in crime isn't even significant to begin with; you talk about the fact that these weapons might be converted to full auto without any evidence that this is a widespread occurance; and you talk about the usage of these weapons in a few mass murders. You seem to be focusing on possibilities and the odd occurance rather than what actually happens. That strikes me as hysterical.

Nonsense.

In fact there was substantial interest in making weapons fully automatic. Hell you could order conversion kits through the mail.

But that's not relevant, Welsh. The point I'm making is that this law doesn't and never did ban weapons because they might be converted to fully auto. If that were the case, you would expect to see that reflected in the law somehow. There would be some kind of mechanical specifications that had to be fulfilled or something. You don't see that at all. This element was also absent from the way the law was presented by its sponsors.

There's just no evidence to indicate that this was a significant element in the drafting of the 1994 AWB. If you can find something in the text of the law that indicates this, post it. Otherwise it simply is not relevant.

Making a personal attack is not the way to make an argument. Or if it is, it reflects a failure to have reliable evidence or valid reasoning. This is called an Ad Hominem attack-

I'm sorry that you believe calling your arguments hysterical is a personal attack. It isn't. It's an assesment of your argument.

You know Gywdion, you don't use much reliable evidence. Or if you do introduce evidence, you use statistics that only favor your argument. Why don't you try to be a bit more balanced in your choice of statistics? Or is that merely because you are relying on statistics favored by one community against more balanced stats?

This just struck me as laughable. One of my biggest sources in the whole AWB debate has been the study commissed by the Clinton administration after the law was passed to determine the effects of the law. Clinton was a huge proponent of the bill, how can I get more balanced than that?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Sander, thief or not, they are taking from you because they are to lazy or immoral enough to get a decent working job. I could care less if a thief steals a painting "Which is important to some silly rich people." But if they take something that I WORK for away from me, then I would put them down if I catch them in the act. I would just injure them Sander, but like I said, there is always that little thing called vengance.

 

[Murdoch]

Just to chime in, I think criminals should be treated much, much harsher than they are now. The US legal system is a pathetic joke, so if some scumbag gets treated with excessive force by a civilian I'm not going to shed any tears for them. Fuck reasoning with them and being civil with them - they signify their disrespect for it when they decide to break the written and unwritten conventions of society. You might feel like the better man for taking the "moral high ground", but that's all that's accomplished. If someone's prepared to take your life, beat the hell out of you or worse, you'd better be prepared to do more than talk to them. They're parasites, and they should be treated as such.

By not treating offendors civilly you are in essnce lowering yourself to their level and breaking the same social contracts they are.

And if by taking the moral high ground all you accomplish is signifying your respect for life law and society, I don't think there is much else to do, no?

I suggest you recuse yourself if ever asked to serve on a jury Montez.

 

[Gwydion]

The issue of appropriateness is a very touchy one, and it's difficult to define. England has laws in place that severely limit the ability of citizens to carry any defensive weapons. You literally have to believe you are in imminent danger, or you may be convicted of illegally possessing a weapon when you're the victim.

I recall reading about a case where a young man had a bicycle chain and a 'studded glove' that he carried because he was frequently terrorized by gangs. He was arrested for illegally carrying offensive weapons. Initially he was found innocent on the grounds that he was in relatively imminent danger, and about 16 days later he was in fact beaten by a gang so badly that he was hospitalized. The prosecutor decided to take pity on him and appealed the decision. The higher court returned the case to the lower court with instructions to convict. Very nice.

British law also requires that use of force be 'reasonable'. Now, this actually seems ok. I agree that it should be unnecessary to have to use lethal force against a burglar unless he attacks you. Unfortunately, what's reasonable is very subjective and it often does end up being interpreted against the individuals who have to defend themselves.

There was another case I heard about of a very one-sided fight. A large man was choking a smaller man and kneeing him. The smaller man struck out with a pair of scissors and happened to deal a lethal blow. The smaller man was convicted of unreasonable force. Now, in this situation I don't recall how the fight started, so that may have factored into the decision.

Either way it becomes pretty clear from real cases that the line between reasonable and unreasonable defense is blurry. However, people do need to defend themselves. In Great Britain the police presence is especially meager, but in no country can the authorities be counted on get there in time to stop the crime from happening. Because of that, it's unreasonable, and I believe it's even immoral, to tie the hands of law-abiding citizens when it comes to defense. I don't want to see trespassers getting shot just for being where they shouldn't be, but no one should have to live at the mercy of criminals.

 

[megatron]

By not treating offendors civilly you are in essnce lowering yourself to their level and breaking the same social contracts they are.

Whoever said two wrongs don't make a right was wrong mabye?

I don't think they should be treated civilly. There uncivil. Uncivilians :O

The prisons and justice system are shitty too. If they worked well and fair to the innocent I doubt we'd have this discussion. Instead the police are just there to clean up or annoy people, prisons are like 2 star hotels and you can get sued if a criminal hurts himself while robbing your house.

edit: This is mostly from memory; after the reasonable force law was passed last year (before you just had to watch as someone walked around your house) a 60 year old blind man managed to assault somebody on his lawn who had broken into his house and he was arrested. While waiting for court his house was burned down. How is that fair?

Police are also allowed to use lethal force if someone takes out a knife in front of them. Remember that our police don't carry guns and there's no similair law for similair crimes. Stupid eh?