|
GUN DEBATE
:dover::dovel:
Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns - Yahoo! News Spoiler:
supreme SCOTUS 2nd Amendment armed populace don't you know guns are dangerous!? |
Nehmi it's against the rules to have a dupe account to troll with
|
Quote:
|
No, that's what Nehmi would do because he is negativist and paranoid
You are clearly Bizarro Nehmi, since you posted a massive article that will go unread about what you think is GOOD news that is TRUE before you babbled out something incomprehensible and overenthused. |
Won't it be interesting to study the homicide rate in D.C. over the next few years now? Granted there's all sorts of considerations, but it'll still be interesting! I mean people on one side say it'll definitely go down, and people on the other say it'll definitely go up. I'd love to see who was the more accurate predictor.
|
The problem is that the pro-gun ethos views gun crime as not a reason to eliminate guns but a reason to add even more guns because otherwise how will you shoot all the gun-havers
|
But it's self defense Pang, that means the gun-crime perpetrators die, and the number of deaths goes up, but the number of criminal deaths goes down!
Then D.C. can finally throw that block party it always wanted but could never have because its buddies were too afraid to visit. =( |
Ah, but they don't mostly
because as criminals they can reasonably be assumed to be better at murderin' than non-criminals are this is my assessment of matters after several viewings of High Noon |
Quote:
|
I should warn you before you get too indignant: you are arguing with a drunk cartoon who is deliberately engaging in farce
also I am pretty sure turtle power is more than adequate to assure that criminals are not cut any slack |
There's always the people kill people argument, which is what I like to stand by.
The problem isn't who has a gun and who doesn't, because the gun ban won't keep the baddies from having guns. The nation as a whole is angry, discontent, and bitter. Not to mention full of ignorant, uneducated fucks from a million different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Everybody here has at least one person they'd like to shoot. So basically, too many assholes will translate to too many criminals, which would translate to too many illegally owned firearms, which leads to more criminal deaths. A ban on guns would probably stop those silly national newsbreaks such school shootings, and that nasty factory shooting from this week, but it probably wouldn't slow down the real demographic of criminals. Don't take away people's guns. Find a way to make people happier and less full of piss, salt, and vinegar. |
Gun debates are one of the few issues where both sides fear the same thing.
I also think it's interesting that the places in the country where people really could use a handgun for self-defense have (had) bans. |
Quote:
The capacity of everyone around them to be a potentially dangerous violent douchebag? |
I heard the number of crimes was significantly (like 500% or so) lower after Washington decided to ban firearms in the middle of the 70s. While I agree that you should be allowed to own a weapon in order to defend yourself, I am not sure whether that is necessary in areas where the crime rate is significantly low.
|
The arguement that criminals will have guns whether they're banned or not is a retarded one. Yes, hardcore criminals will have guns whether or not they're banned but hardcore criminals don't commit petty housebreaks and burglary, they stick to more profitable stuff like smuggling and bank robberies and generally in those lines of criminality you tend to come up against armed guards or the Navy, who generally have much bigger guns than you.
If guns are illegal than your average burglar isn't going to have one. Sure, if you disturb them you might still get a kicking but you'll probably survive that. If he's packing heat and you come down waving a shooter around, the chances of someone ending up dead are exponentially higher. Also, I'd love to see some statistic on just how often someone breaks into someone else's house while they're in in America. Do you guys have fucking shit burgalrs or what? The one thing English housebreakers avoid all else is going into a house when somebody's at home. How many crimes have actually ever been averted because a homeowner had a gun? I'd suggest that the figure is pretty damn close to zero. Also, if someone is in your house with a gun, isn't getting out your own gun just gonna make them more likely to shoot you? Correct me if I'm wrong but most criminals would rather face a burglary conviction than a murder charge, they're breaking in to your house to steal shit, not kill people. Do you guys not have insurance over there? Are your possesions really so important that you want to risk a shoot out in your own home to defend them? The whole "self-defense" thing is basically bullshit and I think that deep down you all know it. Americans want to own guns out of some machismo, penis substitute need. I AM MAN, I HAVE BIG GUN TO SHOOT BAD GUYZ IN MY HOUSE. It's the same sort of thing that drives blokes to have fights outside kebab shops after the pub over here, only people rarely get killed in friendly punch-ups. That gun and knife crime is on the rise over here is merely a symptom of kids these days being a bunch of pussies who don't know how to fight properly and the chances of getting shot by someone breaking into your house are still basically nil in this country. |
Quote:
It's a loaded argument - you know it's purely anecdotal and there's no reliable way to compile statistics on it, so you have every bit as much chance of being dead wrong as you are of right. You can sit here and offer your asinine arguments of Americans merely wanting guns out of some kind of vanity, but I reject that argument out of hand. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to property - not only to just own it, but to be able to defend it, even with deadly force if the need arises. You don't have to agree with it - hell, I don't want you to, but don't you dare sit there and try to say that I'm a pussy because I value the right to defend myself and my property with a firearm. |
Quote:
If instead you pull out your own gun, there's a distinct possibility that either you or the guy might end up firing. Let's face it, if someone's desperate enough for money to rob a house when someone's home they're possibly desperate enough to actually use the gun they're carrying. Now if you're lucky, nobody gets shot and the dude gets away with whatever he grabbed before you disturbed him. There's a possiblity you'll hit him meaning you have a dead dude in your house and blood all over your stuff, do insurance companies pay out for damage done to furniture by you blowing someone's brains out all over it? I honestly don't know, that kinda thing doesn't happen here. If you're really unlucky though either he shoots you first or he misses and hits a member of your family, the cops get called, he panics, takes a hostage, the whole thing escalates and everyone ends up dead. I know that's an extreme situation but surely it just makes more sense to run the very slim risk of confronting someone in your home and losing all your stuff which you can easily replace and keep your health in the process against the same risk of meeting someone in your house only with an added risk of you or your family ending up dead in the process? For me that's a no-brainer. I honestly don't believe that anyone I found in my house would be there to hurt people, they just want to steal stuff and I think that introducing your own gun into the situation is going to increase the risk of someone getting hurt, not decrease it. Sure, protect your stuff but at the end of the day, it's only stuff and you can get that back really, really easily. I just can't imagine a situation where having a gun at home is in anyway helpful or a good idea for self defence purposes. |
Whether or not you think it's stupid or not is not the issue -- the issue is whether or not I should have the right to own that firearm to protect my shit. You don't think I should have that right and as a result, you know exactly what you can go do.
Quote:
|
That's true. The right to remain stupid is one that Americans hold dear.
I figured that as the case had been decided by the courts, the amount of input GFF members could offer as to the constitutional right to own a gun would be pretty limited and this would be a hell of a short thread without some people discussing the wider issues of gun ownership. Do you not worry though that legislation in your country is so tightly bound by the often vague wording of a twohundred year old document with no room for the application of common sense? I mean, I know it's your right to own a gun but what would it take for people to start accepting that maybe in the context of modern society, had the constitution been written now they probably wouldn't have put that bit in and as such, clinging to that as the sole arguement against banning firearms is pretty dumb? |
Let me say that I don't own a gun. I've never used one and I don't ever plan on owning one. They simply aren't needed where I live.
But it should be up to the homeowner to decide if the risk of confronting an intruder with a gun is worth it. You assume quite a lot in your one hypothetical situation: 1. We can all have insurance on all of our shit! 2. We can all afford a burglary! 3. You will probably get shot at if you pull out a gun! Unfortunately there are places where 1 & 2 is just wrong. There are some areas where people really are struggling and they can't afford insurance and they need everything they can get. Letting a burglar rob their shit would be devastating. And it's typically in those areas where burglars are willing to use weapons to get what they want. You're pretty much saying that these people don't really need the choice to protect their property and themselves because it's really dangerous! who gives a fuck if they live in a shithole and they own next to nothing and burglars will have the upper hand I don't even know how you reached the conclusion that pulling a gun out will make an intruder more likely to shoot at you. The common idea is that pulling a gun out will make someone shit themselves and leave because they don't want to die. Have they run psychological tests or something? Are there stats that show that most people will respond violently to a gun? If not then well that's just something you made up, and not really more valid than the philosophy of guns as a deterrent. Guns for lawful purposes should be allowed, because the truth is that they are of practical use to some people. The question of whether the Constitution is outdated doesn't apply here, because people still feel a need to defend themselves. (But I am usually on the side of activist judges - the Constitution does need to be adapted to modern times in some cases.) I do agree however with meeting certain requirements before being able to own a gun, so it's not like I'm a complete gun nut or anything |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unless I'm very wrong and violent house breaking is far more common in the US than it is here (Which it may well be, I admit that), I just don't see the situation where you're in your house at the same time as a burglar and your very presemce isn't enough to scare them off happening so often you need a lethal weapon to protect yourself. I'm simply stating that in my opinion, people getting all pissy because they can't keep guns at home are misguided as in my opinion I can't ever see a time when it'd be beneficial. It is my opinion that from a practical point of view, a gun is not a useful or cost effective way of protecting your property and that maintaining a constitutional right to own weapons that can kill people very easily with little or no skill or personal involvement on the basis of needing them to protect your property is silly as the social costs outweigh the individual benefits. I might not be able to kill someone who's sneaking around my house stealing my stuff without getting within arms reach, sure, but kids round here don't have to go through metal detectors on their way into school and the schools don't need early warning systems to let everyone know when a crazed gunman is on a shooting spree because when kids here get all emo and pissed off with life, their parents don't have a load of guns lying around the house. |
Quote:
I understand that most of you kids outside the US live in near utopia since your gov'ts have disarmed you. But here, many of us can't fully rely on our law enforcement agencies to protect us from harm. So if citizens want to keep weapons in their homes as a "worst case scenario" safety precaution...why not? It be like not owning a fire extinguisher on the principle that you'll probably never need one. Regardless of personal preference, it should remain a personal preference. |
I'm willing to be proved wrong but I'm fairly sure the instances of people getting killed by fire extinguishers going off accidentally or kids using their parent's fire extinguishers to massacre their school mates are pretty few and far between. What I'm suggesting is that the risks of someone getting unintentionally killed by a gun you keep loaded in your bedside cabinet outweigh the benefits of keeping a loaded firearm in your bedside cabinet in case some crazed maniac bursts into your house at such a time as you happen to be upstairs in reach of your gun.
|
Quote:
Fire extinguishers won't accidentally paint the walls of your house with brains if in the wrong hands. Guns create more problems than they solve. It's your choice to have one, I will agree to that, but it's also your choice to put undue anxiety on you and your family if you have a curious little 4-year-old. I think the worst case of someone in your family being accidentally hurt by a gun is far worse than some nutjob breaking into your house. |
Perhaps you kids need to stop worrying about your 4 year old grabbing a handgun that's bigger than his arm and more about how natural selection will help him pull the trigger.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The social costs you listed are probably better attributed to a lack of respect for guns rather than their abundance. If a parent owns a gun, it is pretty fucking important to teach their kids not to fuck around with it. And if a kid just flips his shit one day and is going to go on a crime spree, taking guns away probably won't stop him from causing harm to others (remember the recent Tokyo thing? though I agree that there would be less harm done). I think it's more important in those cases to try to spot a troubled person before he does anything, which is admittedly difficult in some cases, but it shouldn't be if the parents are on their A-game. edit: the vandals in my mom's story were armed, btw |
Quote:
|
Quote:
They lifted a ban...they didn't make gun ownership mandatory. |
The problem with the "it's a personal preference" argument is that people who "prefer" to have an object in their home that is statistically more likely to blow their hand off than to do them any good are kind of nutty — and obviously we don't want nutty people to have guns so it's a bit open-and-shut.
|
Quote:
|
Pang... so based on some unreferenced hypothetical statistical data that you have yet to present, is it your argument that the legislature should abandon the idea that citizens just might be able to engage in safe practice with dangerous tools on the basis of idiot-proofing life for all the "nutty people" who are accident prone?
|
Quote:
Nobody needs a gun in the same way that nobody needs a power drill. If I felt like my life was in danger, though, I'd feel much more certain of myself if I had a gun and not a baseball bat. This is especially true for women. Quote:
It's also nice that you're such a criminal expert but criminal culture isn't the same in the US. You're right, the average home invader won't be carrying a gun because that could suggest intent to kill, but some of them do and even the ones that don't have assaulted residents. The problem is that nobody is omnipresent and when somebody invades your residence you have no clue concerning their intent. Many of us would rather possess piece of mind instead of taking the extreme risks involved in confronting an invader physically. In a lot of ways a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense because the sound of the action will scare off just about anybody before you even have to confront them. We also don't have the same kind of gangster element. Street gangs operate actively in people's neighborhoods, so accidental killings from stray bullets aren't uncommon. The emphasis on being hard also means that a lot of people become victimized when gang members try to prove themselves. This is especially true for Mexico and along the Mexican border, since Hispanic gangs and cartels have had to be hideously brutal to carve out a place for themselves. A guy was just recently assassinated by 6 men hired by a drug cartel, some of which were active members of the Mexican army. That's obviously a one in a million case, but it's indicative of how far these people are willing to go. As for how many crimes are averted by an armed citizen, that's unquantifiable. An averted crime isn't newsworthy, and many go unreported. The same is also true of gun control and bans. Causal links between policy and resulting crime rates are difficult to prove if at all, and in cases where a link can be established (like DC assuming Mush is right) crime has also rebounded and in many cases become much worse (again, like DC). So once again it comes back to piece of mind. There's also protection from THE GUBMINT, which is actually a terrible interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. No amount of firepower is going to protect an individual from the state, despite how many communes and mountain men think they will. Firearms support revolution, and it's impossible to engage in asymmetric warfare without firearms. Private ownership of firearms can protect the free state, assuming that people are willing to defend it. also at least we have a constitution booya :cool: |
Quote:
|
Plus guns are fun as fuck, stop trying to take away our fun you fags.
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree that crime in the US is far diferent and more hardcore than it is here. I just don't think owning a gun is a really practical way to stop it is all. If you own a gun, you're not going to carry it around the house are you? It'll be stashed somewhere, most likely near the bed. In order to be able to use your gun to stave off wouldbe home invaders, you need to be in your bedroom when they home invade. This would suggest that it's likely to be night time which again would suggest that you'll be tired, whereas they'l be wide awake and buzzing off their crime spree. You're coming downstairs, not knowing where in the house the crims are, they're hiding downstairs (Unless you're some kind of stealth ninja, everyone makes some noise getting out of bed and if you're a ninja you don't need a gun) knowing exactly where you're coming from. If they're going to run, they'll do so before you appear, gun or no gun. If they're gonna kill you, they're gonna kill you or disarm you long before you get a shot off. Having a gun to defend yourself at home doesn't save you from a ganster's stray bullets in a drive-by, it doesn't stop people breaking into your house when you're out (Which is when the vast majority of burglarys happen) and I'd suggest, using the example I just made, that they achieve fuck all when it comes to getting people out of your house when you're there. Yes, I can see how they might provide peace of mind to paranoid fucks who've not thought it through properly living in lawless townships but I chalenge anyone to give a reasonable, realistic, theoretical situation where having a gun at home in America will in any way help you prevent loss of property or injury. |
District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006
here are some statistics they might be helpful Additional Spam: The '75 Gun Ban didn't seem to have much of an effect. Burglaries went down around 1990, 15 years after the gun ban, so I doubt that you could establish a strong link between those two things |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're right, gun possession isn't going to stop crime, that's not the point. The point is that a gun will still provide a modicum of protection, especially if you have a security system which activates on a break-in. Conjecturing on how things can go wrong for the home invader and the victim is ultimately pointless because all cases can occur. The point about accidental killings that I didn't get across is that yes, criminals will still have guns, and yes homicide and accidental death will still be a significant problem with strict gun control or gun bans. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would hardly consider a slight three-year dip proof that gun bans are a lasting solution. |
Don't mess with Paine.
Since the Constitution is mostly a agreement between the States and the Federal Government. (To form a more perfect Union) The Bill of Rights does not give legal rights to the People. Nor is it suppose to. Rather it's meant to recognize the natural rights of the People. Which is why the US Constitution is considered a social contract. Gun ownership being one of those natural rights. Tom Paine on why the Bill of Rights doesn't give you any legal rights. Quote:
|
Quote:
Hitting a kid at 30mph apparently kills something like 35% less kids than hitting them at 35mph. Given how rarely people actually run over kids, does that mean they ought to increase the speed limits in urban areas by 5mph so people who like driving faster can do so? I know you can't foresee every eventuality and I know that people around the world will still get killed in all maner of unfortunate ways every day but surely, putting legislation in place that will probably save some lives and will probably not lead to a wholesale surge in armed robberies is a win-win situation. Except, as Brady said, guns are fun, even if the laws that are there only permit you to have it at home and look at it, until such time as a gang of uzi toting crack heads kicks your front door in and starts raping your daughter. Additional Spam: Quote:
|
Quote:
*This does not apply to teenagers, frat rats, or Watts. |
"Noah was a drunk. Look what HE accomplished."
Right, I can see how that works. |
Quote:
I would focus gun control legislation more towards being able to obtain a gun (background checks, mental stability checks, etc). |
Quote:
|
The notion that background checks keep guns away from anyone is a laughable one for the same reason that checking IDs for booze/tobacco is laughably ineffective. If a teenager can bribe someone to purchase something in his stead, I'm fairly sure a lunatic can.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Traffic accidents occur frequently so their danger in regards to minor mortality justifies the legislation. Hell, the 9/11 hijacking caused the total collapse of an entire city block and killed thousands, so even if airport security is shitty new mandates are still justified. Not enough people are killed accidentally by firearms for people to give a shit. The presence of firearms do not present a sufficient danger to the public to warrant a ban. We shouldn't be treating millions of adults like children because a statistically insignificant number of people don't use or store their firearms safely. You know what I would be willing to support, though? Ceilings on gun ownership. 2-3 guns per home, and more allowed if stored in a secure facility. This is because gun collections are paradoxically more likely to make one a target for home invasion, and guns stolen from private collections are a significant source of illegally circulated weapons. |
Quote:
Personally, I think the tag should be removed for the sake of natural selection. You do the math and see where I stand on the gun issue. |
But think of all that wasted electricity.
|
Quote:
People keep treating these things as some kind of goddamn Living Embodiment Of My Constitutional Rights!!! instead of an object. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
you know because guns are registered, usually and taking mental tests is harder than flashing a driver's license there's probably a lot more paperwork involved than when buying a 12 pack, so yeah, generally harder Quote:
|
These analogies do not hold up so well, Meth. Their core functions are incompatible.
You see, the function of a car, the reason people purport to need one, is travel. It is indeed possible to use a car in this fashion safely. There are other ways to use a car, but this is the core use. If a car was built that did everything that a normal car does except accelerate your travels, no one would buy it. The function of a gun is to put new windows in a structurally-sound person. It is not possible to use a gun in this fashion safely; by definition if the gun is used in this fashion someone has been hurt. There are other ways to use a gun, but this is the core use. If a gun was released that did everything a normal gun does except shoot bullets into people, no one would buy it.* When people talk about "safe driving" what they generally mean is usage of the item's core function (accelerated travel) with the hope of absolutely minimizing injury or harm to the driver or other drivers. When people talk about "safe gun ownership" what they generally mean is preventing the item's core function from engaging, by keeping the weapon unloaded, locked up, et cetera. A safe gun owner wants to prevent people from getting shot, or to make the gun useless. You can't just treat a gun as a piece of property like any other for this reason. Either you're just looking at it (it's useless) or somebody's badly hurt (it's useful). Maybe there are other items like this but none are coming to mind. You can fuck somebody up pretty badly with a cricket bat but that's not why cricket bats exist. *with some exceptions vis-a-vis hunting, but do you think the gun lobby would accept a ban on everything but hunting rifles? Also, when I say "no one" this obviously excludes collectors, which are in a class of lunacy all their own. Quote:
If you think "paperwork" keeps a determined asshole from doing whatever the hell he's decided to do I expect you don't watch the news too often. Here, let me lay it out for you. You have a gun. I am a criminal who does not object to killing someone to get what I want. Now I have a gun! At any rate gun bans obviously don't eliminate violent crimes. Mostly people just resort to stabbing each other. But the class of crimes you can accomplish with knives is significantly smaller. I can't see anyone holding up a bank with a machete exactly. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Guns aren't useless if they don't hurt anybody, your own example of the bank robbery is indicative of the deterrent factor. Some people get shot during bank robberies but most of the time they don't and I'd hardly think the robber considers his gun useless because nobody was perforated. Hell, you don't even need a real gun for deterrent, which is a significant cause of gun crime in Britain. You could even use an airsoft gun in a robbery (doesn't shoot bullets). The same principle applies to all other uses, legal or otherwise. If I can deter somebody from committing an assault or robbery without firing a single shot that's the best possible outcome. |
Quote:
Some people keep pistols not only for personal protection, but also for competitive shooting and recreation, and as you mentioned, collecting. Clue me in on why this seems crazy. |
Quote:
It's entirely possible you're awake 24/7 and never leave the house but this is not probably the most common example. Quote:
As for collecting I don't see why "GUYS LOOK: I HAVE A LOT OF SOMETHING" isn't a little silly. When I was about 7, maybe 8, I collected baseball cards. And then I said to myself: "Self, these things are fucking worthless". |
It'd probably be best if everybody stopped fantasizing about what could go right or wrong. Paranoia isn't going to get us anywhere, and paranoid fantasies should not be the basis of policy.
The fact is that guns have deterred crime. Guns have also made people the target of crime. Guns can save lives and also be completely useless. The core of this debate concerns cultural values, and the political reality is that despite the majority of Americans who do not mind gun control, the few that care about it are the only ones who consider it a voting issue. So I guess Americans just love guns FUCK YEAH
FUCK YEAH
FUCK YEAH
FUCK YEAH |
|||||||||||
more like
|
|||||
Quote:
|
Quote:
And just cause you decided that your baseball collection sucked, doesn't mean that other people don't enjoy collecting things (guns included). |
I'm not saying they don't enjoy it. People enjoy a lot of terrible things. NASCAR. Hot Pockets. Everybody Loves Raymond.
I'm not writing anything off because it's "scary" but because it's conceptually boring. People taking turns pointing at things. It's not an objection to guns precisely, I have the same attitude toward, say, a free-throw contest. "Sports" where nobody's actually interacting. |
Quote:
Plus, I'm a big fan of Xenogears. Freud rocked his shit off in that game. Uhh spoiler alert? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
FUCK YEAH |
|||||||||||||||
Look all I'm saying is that it's their fault they didn't arm themselves
|
Columbine was caused by videogames everyone knows that by now
John Romero made Columbine his bitch :( |
This is the calibre of criminal who burgles for your Panasonic, Meth:
From the case sample we can already see formidable offensive capacity, depth perception capabilities and hand-eye (crucial) |
|||||
A perfect opportunity for the use of "Smooth Criminal" completely squandered
|
|
I heard that Columbine was linked to bowling. Well, at least more so than video games or music.
I support the right to own firearms, but have zero desire to do so myself. Outlawing firearms, as many people already stated, just means that you'll have to get it illegally. Perhaps a little more difficult, but does anybody really get stressed about marijuana being illegal? After seeing Michael Moore's film, the United States is certainly a special case when it comes to gun violence. "Bowling for Colombine" didn't provide any conclusive findings, but it did point out distinctive societal differences that might be at the heart of the problem in this country. The other thing I just learned, most gun deaths in the U.S. are from suicides. What's up with that? I must say that I find it difficult to defend gun ownership on the grounds of crime prevention. The odds of a gun being used this way are slim and the consequences of misuse are extreme even if unlikely. But what if I was living in the heart of the L.A. riots. What if I was a store owner being threated with knife or um...a palm frond? What if I saw a rabid dog in my neighborhood? I think these are pretty reasonable situations. Not enough so that I feel compelled to own a firearm, but enough so that I can understand why someone else would. |
Quote:
You tell me which one is the easier option. |
Quote:
I have to disagree if they think you will shoot they will obviously try to shoot you first in self defence. I'm with Shin on this one probably because I'm British of course we have a black market problem with guns whereby the Eastern European gangs are smuggling them in; however, I feel alot safe here than I would in any state in the USA. I don't need a gun to protect my person, why should anybody else because the ban creates a blanket of equality; of course you still have the black markets but that creates a lot less problems than legal supply. I think its fool hardy to compare guns to knives or other objects. Guns are way more distructive, especially those automatics. Its much easier to shoot a guy heck you can do it from 20 yards but melee with a knife is a lot harder from 1 yard. Personally I've seen it on a dozen documentaries more recently one with Ritch Hall last year where in that programme many Americans admitingly owned a gun for the VANITY or because an old line in the consitituion said they could, there was no other rationale behind their myopia. |
Quote:
|
Well because you know when you're squinting down them sights you might not see other things so well
So that's sort of myopic I guess? |
Quote:
To be armed used to be your right as a British citizen as well, but then you curtailed those freedoms for honestly no good reason. (well I guess socialists and commies were a good enough reason at the time) |
Quote:
Quote:
What scares me most about the American Judicial system is the shear comical penalty for carrying an unlicensed gun, I've seen people getting frigging fines, suspended sentences, or community service. In the UK its a minimum 5 years in jail. |
I am pretty much the furthest thing from a gun supporter I can think of but 5 years in prison seems a bit much for owning an unlicensed object. What's the sentence for driving unlicensed over there, 20-to-life?
Of course these are English prisons so it's likely not as bad as it sounds. |
Quote:
The history of gun control measures in the UK and US suggest that attempts at strict gun control have little to no effect on violent or gun-related crime in the long term, going both ways. Really the reason I wouldn't feel safe in Great Britain is because you've tied your hands behind your back in regards to the self-defense issue. It's come to the point where it's a greater legal liability to defend yourself or defend others in the case of an assault or robbery, so no fucking wonder crime has been on the increase. |
Quote:
The problem I find is most people don't make the distintinction between protecting yourself and protecting an inanimate object. This problem is due partial to the fact that as a trainee lawyer I'm quite legalistic in the law of Duress of circumstance any defence is only viable when its against a threat of 'life, limb, or liberty' Singh v Singh (heh used that case in my exam). In that respect you might slightly convince me of the self defence aspect of owning a gun. However people like Night Phoenix as he put it wants to use his gun to protect his 'shit' This in my view is disproportionate use you might make a case in the above of gun ownership in self defence (not that I buy it), but I've seen that argument dismantled in the courts. Once again you could say my view is rather legalistic but our law states its ok to kill in self defence even if you do use a gun via a genuine held belief of a threat providing its honestly held (R v Conway) but NOT ok to kill in self defence of your LCD TV from being stolen and thats how the law should be. Guns create more problems than they solve and thats my stance. |
Well that's the problem when you attempt to legally determine reasonable cause in a potentially life-threatening situation. When you feel like your life is in danger, regardless of the criminal intent reason goes out the window.
I'm not even talking about the use of a firearm, I mean in a general sense you're in more danger protecting yourself or property with less-than-lethal means than not due to the potential civil proceedings which favor the person committing the assault or robbery. If I couldn't even put up my dukes to defend myself and my property I just would not have nice things, because if the fight is one-sided in my favor then it looks like I was being "unreasonable" regardless of any potential reality regarding the threat. Awarding damages to injured persons after the fact because they only wanted to burgle and not hurt anybody (really I swear it) creates a situation where people shouldn't even bother defending themselves period in any manner. |
Quote:
Quote:
As for property if you can pay a few hundred for a gun and permit surely instead you can pay a few hundred for your house insurance. |
Brady, although technically it would appear that you can't legally defend yourself over here, in reality, if you're attacked, no policeman is going to arrest you for fighting back and defending yourself. What they would object to though is after you've knocked the guy out, stamping on his head.
I think looking at pure crime figures is a little blinkered too. Although it's true that the blanket ban on handguns had little real effect on the violent crime figures, we've had little in the way of school massacres since Dunblaine and very few random killing rampages. The press here are jumping all over every story of a kid getting stabbed or shot but the truth is, that's only really happening in really, really shitty bits of London, Liverpool and Manchester and for all the parents anguish about their cherubic little murdered angel, you can pretty much guarantee that for a wannabe gangster to have stabbed or shot them they must have been up to something. Yes, illegal gun culture is a growing problem here but not nearly to the extent that the press would have us all believe. As several people have said already here, you're significantly more likely to get killed by an uninsured driver than to get shot by an unlicensed gun. Pang, owning an unlicenced gun isn't referred to in crime terms as owning an unlicensed gun, it's possesion of a lethal weapon and lands you in jail for realistically, a couple of years, whereas driving an untaxed car merely gets you banned from driving for a year or so and your car gets crushed. |
Quote:
To add more fuel to the fire of this discussion. What do you guys think of Joe Horn? |
Quote:
Pure texas filth. Shoots two unarmed men as they run away from him after choosing to confront them then plays the victim. I still can't believe that even down there they didn't prosecute him. Not to mention that they don't bother to tell you in this article he was actually confronting them when they had been on his neighbor's property rather than his own. So the castle doctrine should have been a mute point unless he was specifically charged with watching over his neighbors property while he was away. Which if remember some of the other articles on the matter he wasn't. Ugh this shit makes those of us who actually support gun ownership but don't salivate at the chance to shoot shoot some wetbacks look really bad. And I don't appreciate that one bit. |
Oh, that guy. Listening to the actual 911 call record is so much worse than reading it. They told him so many times to stay in his home, but he walks out and blasts those guys after saying "I'll kill 'em". If that's not intent to kill I don't know what is. The best part is at the end where the police are afraid he's gonna shoot them too, since they had undercover officers respond to the call.
Ah, found it.
|
|||||
I don't even see how it's a matter worth discussing.
"Guys, what do you think of this fella who shot two strangers in the back for no good reason?" Quote:
That's significantly more hardcore than the use of an impound lot, I applaud. |
Quote:
|
They did not come onto his property until he walked outside to confront them. Which the 911 dispatcher told him not to do six times.
|
Doesn't matter - they came on his property and they got fucked up. Grand jury didn't see it fit to indict him, therefore what's the problem?
As far as I'm concerned, justice was served. (That is, had he been indicted and eventually convicted, I would say the same) |
Well arguably the problem could be posited as follows:
Couple of dudes were shot and killed for no real reason at all. You see how people might object to that. |
See, I can see the argument for wanting to own a handgun for protection, or a rifle for hunting. Here's the bit I don't get: What possible reason is there for it to be legal for a citizen to own an assault rifle.
Just curious. |
Given that this was all over the local news when it happened . . .
Quote:
You're making it seem like he was some trigger-happy nut who just felt like roleplaying a hero. The guy is an old man with probably an outdated sense of priorities. His character though is quite sound, from the reports and articles surrounding this affair. Granted, I don't necessarily agree with his actions, but he wasn't exactly wrong in doing so either. |
Quote:
"Doing what you think is right" isn't an excuse when "what you think is right" is murder. (cue NP to tell me that blah blah acquitted technically not murder!) |
I don't think the fact that he shot them in the back can be stressed enough, it sort of implies that they're running away and not presenting any danger to his life or property.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Are you really so certain he isn't? Who's to say he hadn't been just waiting for an opportunity where he could likely have it called legally justifiable to off someone.
|
Because it doesn't make sense with what we know about the man, obviously.
Stop grasping at straws here. The simple fact of the matter is this: Joe Horn was found to have reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he shot these two men, therefore no charges were brought against him. End of discussion really. |
Quote:
He killed them as an unfortunate and uncontrollable side effect of his crippling Texan Fuckwad Syndrome. Let us all pray that this poor individual may be cured of his affliction. |
If you take the situation and remove the gun from the equation, it basically plays out like this:
Old man sees neighbor's house being robbed, calls police, stays in his house, watches thieves leave on foot. Police arrive, are told which way the thieves exited scene of crime, catch criminals and return stolen items. No one is shot and killed unless absolutely necessary, and if so, said shooting and killing is performed by the police who are legally entrusted with the judgment to know when to shoot and kill people. |
Well, to be fair, Texas' Castle Doctrine means that individuals are legally entrusted to shoot and kill people that are on their property illegally.
So the question is really mainly ethical, as legally he really should have been indicted. |
Quote:
|
I just want to remind everyone that the gentleman calling people "nuts" is doing his best to defend the action of fatally shooting nonthreatening petty thieves in the back.
|
Quote:
If a kid gets caught with a playboy, we're not really going to believe he was reading the article on the best cigars north of Cuba, are we? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You can question it, but at the end of the day -- the grand jury determined that this guy didn't do anything worthy of prosecution, which in my book is just fine. If they had decided that he did in fact needed to be prosecuted, I would've been cool with that, too.
|
Quote:
|
I just look at it like - the grand jury didn't indict him, therefore it's not that big of a deal to me anymore. In general principle, would I have done the same thing he did? Probably not, but I do think the guy had a reasonable belief that he was in some sort of danger and he went and did work. The grand jury felt the same way and to me that's the end of it. You wanna change the law after the fact? We have a process for that, but as it stands right now, it doesn't bother me that the guy wasn't prosecuted nor do I see it as an argument against civillian gun ownership.
|
Quote:
This changes everything. I think a group hug is in order. :bigeyes: There is at least one thing that's true, though: trying to judge his frame of mind at the time is pretty much impossible. We can only speculate. And since that job has already been taken, we're just the Monday morning quarterbacks. |
Quote:
What's ridiculous are the people who thing they need an assault rifle for self-defense, since that's really overkill, so much to the point in fact where an assault rifle isn't even close to the best choice. Shotguns sound scary without even needing to be fired, and handguns can be easily used indoors. Buckshot and pistol ammo don't have a penetration issue, either, so there's less danger of hurting your neighbors. Plus you can't exactly keep a rifle in a drawer or under a pillow. |
If you're that bad a shot that you need an automatic assault rifle to hit anything, perhaps you should think about getting a new hobby.
|
Not all assault rifles are fully automatic. The civilian AK is modified for semi-auto only in American markets.
|
I thought all assault rifles that could be legally owned by civilians in the US had to be restricted to semi-auto. Any models that are capable of burst or auto are illegal to own unless the bolt has been cut to prevent firing. Although... civilians can own full auto machine guns (in Arizona anyway) so perhaps it is a state law.
|
Quote:
|
Throw this 'should have' business out the window, the Supreme Court set precedent and you can be separate but equal.
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...democracy2.gif But we don't elect supreme court justices! Would you like to know more? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
That should just highlight the need to own a gun if your neighbor is running a wood chipper.
|
I think this law in the usa is not needed beacuse everyone can kill evryone who will enter his property and can say he was protecting himself
|
It's best that people don't have any guns at all. Look at the UK, they took their guns away and now they have to resort to knifings. Only the criminals should be allowed to have guns, after all they don't follow the rule of law. Ask any criminal where they get their gun so they can take the 5th amendmant...
Oh and goverment officials should not be the only law abiding people to have automatics, sure if your average jow has it, its overkill but the point is its a protected right no matter how silly it looks. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.