NationStates Jolt Archive

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:38 AM EST (1238 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.

The armed suspect and his partner were killed. The Dosters won't be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

"I just started shooting," said Gloria Doster, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."

Shoats Grocery & Package near Crawford, 70 miles east of Atlanta, is a well-known spot where locals stop for breakfast biscuits or lunch. Gloria Doster said the two men who came there Monday had something else in mind.

She was rearranging boxes of soda by the store's front door when a man wearing a wig walked inside, the fake hair draped in front of his face.

"I asked him, 'Can you see to walk?"' Doster said. Then she noticed a second man behind him wearing a mask. He announced a holdup.

One man grabbed Gloria Doster and pushed her toward the register. She said the other kept his gun on her 62-year-old husband, who also goes by the name Shoats.

She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects. Gloria Doster then went for a 9 mm pistol she keeps near the register.

"All hell broke loose," she said. "I was trying to shoot and dial 911 at the same time."

Both suspects took cover behind the store's meat counter as the Dosters opened fire. Gloria Doster said she doesn't know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.

Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Doster's call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.

The bloodshed, nevertheless, startled Gloria Doster, who has been around guns all her life, and has used them for target shooting. "But I never figured I'd have to use them on anybody," she said.

She said the worst thing that's happened in the seven years the couple has owned the store was an after-hours break-in by teenagers three years ago. The burglars were promptly arrested.

Good for them. The police can't be around all the time to protect people. Citizen action like this can seriously deter crime. Criminals don't think about getting caught, but they sure as hell think about getting shot.

I ran a thread like that a little while ago...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388693&page=1&pp=15

lots more great examples there.

Glad they removed themselves from the gene pool....

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:38 AM EST (1238 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.

The armed suspect and his partner were killed. The Dosters won't be charged, according to local officials, because they were acting in self-defense.

"I just started shooting," said Gloria Doster, 56. "I was trying to blow his brains out is what I was trying to do."

Shoats Grocery & Package near Crawford, 70 miles east of Atlanta, is a well-known spot where locals stop for breakfast biscuits or lunch. Gloria Doster said the two men who came there Monday had something else in mind.

She was rearranging boxes of soda by the store's front door when a man wearing a wig walked inside, the fake hair draped in front of his face.

"I asked him, 'Can you see to walk?"' Doster said. Then she noticed a second man behind him wearing a mask. He announced a holdup.

One man grabbed Gloria Doster and pushed her toward the register. She said the other kept his gun on her 62-year-old husband, who also goes by the name Shoats.

She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects. Gloria Doster then went for a 9 mm pistol she keeps near the register.

"All hell broke loose," she said. "I was trying to shoot and dial 911 at the same time."

Both suspects took cover behind the store's meat counter as the Dosters opened fire. Gloria Doster said she doesn't know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.

Police arrived about five minutes after receiving Gloria Doster's call; the suspects died a short time later at a hospital.

The bloodshed, nevertheless, startled Gloria Doster, who has been around guns all her life, and has used them for target shooting. "But I never figured I'd have to use them on anybody," she said.

She said the worst thing that's happened in the seven years the couple has owned the store was an after-hours break-in by teenagers three years ago. The burglars were promptly arrested.

Now then, what was all that from the gun-banners about using weapons for self-defense being all in your mind? :D

Good for the Dosters, bad for the crooks. No teary eyes here. Hopefully people were paying attention and this means they won't be a target for another robbery; it's always nice when people are wise and learn from the mistakes of others.

some people need killin'

good thing those people kept guns behind the counter, they would have been the dead ones

I love the 2nd-amendment and right to self-defense :)

Good!

Two more dead Crooks. Thank God they had weapons to defend themselves with.

Yet another success story in the saga of the right to keep and bear arms.

No complaints here. Those guys should have had the sense to think that maybe the shop owners might not react kindly to an armed robbery.

Good!

Two more dead Crooks. Thank God they had weapons to defend themselves with.

We did have a guy rob a bank with a broken beer bottle a couple days ago. He was caught after he stole a car from the drive-thru and wrecked it in the parking lot. Talk about someone who is just too stupid to live.

Oh wait, this is Georgia. He is probably just the product of a public education.

Good!

Two more dead Crooks. Thank God they had weapons to defend themselves with.
Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:38 AM EST (1238 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.




And that is a prime example of proper gun control.

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

Well, the husband WAS SHOT AT!!! If I had a gun and someone shoots and misses me, I will shoot back.

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

Compared to this part:
"She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed."

Two criminals who tried to kill two honest hard-working senior citizens. Yea, I feel real sorry for them. You would rather the owners be dead or beaten severely?

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]
Ok I'm far from a gun nit, but WTF is wrong with this? They were defending their own lives. The criminals threatened to kill them, and they have a right to defend themselves. It's a pretty clear cut case. The two crooks lost their lives trying to commit a crime, they knew the risks but did it anyway. I doubt anyone is losing too much sleep on their behalf.

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire....

When you really think about it, the rural South isn't the place to commit armed robbery. I think all of the traditional Southern states are right to carry.

Compared to this part:
"She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed."

Two criminals who tried to kill two honest hard-working senior citizens. Yea, I feel real sorry for them. You would rather the owners be dead or beaten severely?

In some parts of the world, the criminals do have the "right" to be safe from their victims. Silly as it seems...

I have to say that this ranks up there with the bank robber who tried to pull a heist at the sametime Clinton's motorcade went passing bye on his way to the Opening Ceremonies of the Atlanta Games in 1996.

Needless to say, that crook didn't get away.

Well, the husband WAS SHOT AT!!! If I had a gun and someone shoots and misses me, I will shoot back.

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Fired a shot at her husband and missed and they promptly killed the two would be crooks.

Two dead criminals due to the right to bear arms.

In some parts of the world, the criminals do have the "right" to be safe from their victims. Silly as it seems...

Don't you just love "justice"?

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
Look, if two thugs walk into my store and fire a shot, fight's on! That's reason enough to be afraid for my life.

Plus you didn't read deep enough into the article

She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

You apparently didn't read the article.

Why shoudl Bobby and Gloria live in fear that some armed thugs can come into their store and rob/beat/shoot them at any time?

How was shooting these two scum wrong?

Two criminals who tried to kill two honest hard-working senior citizens. Yea, I feel real sorry for them. You would rather the owners be dead or beaten severely?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-gun agenda. I am anti-gun, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.
She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

Seems pretty clear to me...

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

Bobby and Gloria Doster have the right to defend their lives.

Take the guns off the street and only crooks will have guns.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-gun agenda. I am anti-gun, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.

Fair enough. How do law-abiding people protect themselves after their ability to acquire guns is eliminated?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-gun agenda. I am anti-gun, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.

No I haven't.

You fit the definition of a

GUN BIGOT
A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge
of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

How was shooting these two scum wrong?
Scum? Interesting.

What makes them 'scum'?

Are they 'scum' because they try and rob? What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?

Are they 'scum' because they have it in them to shoot others? So do Bobby and Gloria Doster.

Scum? Interesting.

What makes them 'scum'?

Are they 'scum' because they try and rob? What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?

Are they 'scum' because they have it in them to shoot others? So do Bobby and Gloria Doster.

They are scum because they prey on others.

Scum? Interesting.

Very LOL

What makes them 'scum'?

uhh, they are crooks?

Are they 'scum' because they try and rob? What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?

Yea, they are scum for trying to rob a store with guns.

Are they 'scum' because they have it in them to shoot others? So do Bobby and Gloria Doster.

How are Bobby and Gloria scum? They defended themselves from the scumbags that tried to rob and kill them.

Scum? Interesting.

Very LOL

What makes them 'scum'?

uhh, they are crooks?

Are they 'scum' because they try and rob? What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?

Yea, they are scum for trying to rob a store with guns.

Are they 'scum' because they have it in them to shoot others? So do Bobby and Gloria Doster.

How are Bobby and Gloria scum? They defended themselves from the scumbags that tried to rob and kill them.

Scum? Interesting.

What makes them 'scum'?

Are they 'scum' because they try and rob? What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?

Are they 'scum' because they have it in them to shoot others? So do Bobby and Gloria Doster.

Ahh, the "It's society's fault" arguement.

They are scum because they tried to rob and kill an honest law-abiding couple. Do you justify that or is your anti-gun prejudice so strong that you would deny the Doster's right to self-defense? These scum(yes I still consider them that) could have had bats, knives, or clubs and still tried to kill the Dosters. The guns didn't cause the crime, they prevented it.

No I haven't.
Your poor wife....

GUN BIGOT
Oooh, this looks amusing.

A person who hates guns. No, I just dislike the whole 'killing' thing.

Typically has little or no personal knowledge
of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
Nice rhetoric. If you mean I don't know how to shoot somebody dead, then you're right. I have fired a shotgun a couple of times - awfly noisy. Got a bit of a sore arm. Not a pleasent experience.

An elitist.
How, pray tell?

One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
ignorant and immoral.
An immoral fear of guns?! Well, that just takes the biscuit.

'Kids these days, they're not shooting people like they used to - it's sick. Why, every upstanding person knows it's the moral way to own a gun!'

Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
legislators.
So where am I supposed to have done this?

Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.
Riiiiight. Yeah. Every time I see a gun, I get an unrational urge to stop it from dating my daughter, drinking at the same water fountain, or sitting anywhere near the front of the bus. Damn those uppity Gun fucks, we should have never let them loose from the plantations.

Fantastic. Senior citizens at their best.

....Riiiiight. Yeah. Every time I see a gun, I get an unrational urge to stop it from dating my daughter, drinking at the same water fountain, or sitting anywhere near the front of the bus. Damn those uppity Gun fucks, we should have never let them loose from the plantations.
Okay pal that was pretty clever stuff. Now, answer my question from earlier. How do law-abiding citizens protect themselves once their ability to acquire guns is eliminated.

As far as I can tell, nobody out there openly correctly interprets the second amendment. Anti-gun people argue that it actually says we have a right to a military, essentially, so ordinary people don't need guns and pro-gun people employ the arguments seen so far in the thread.
In fact, the point of the second amendment is that people should be able to be properly armed so that they can prevent governmental abuse of power. Thus, given the weaponry available in this day and age, the second amendment suggests that we all have the right to own tanks, nuclear missiles, cruise missiles, rocket launchers, pretty much anything the military has. The NRA spends too much time arguing the right to hunt, which is not, in fact, a constitutional right.
Essentially, we have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government, and that is codified in the second amendment.

The guns didn't cause the crime, they prevented it.
Apart from giving the robbers their percieved ability to to rob the store. No guns, no gun death. Which in your country accounts for a shocking 10 out of every 100 deaths. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html))

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not defending the robber's actions (although I would be interested in the backgrounds of the two robbers, as well as their motivations for robbing, before denouncing them as 'scum').

As far as I can tell, nobody out there openly correctly interprets the second amendment. Anti-gun people argue that it actually says we have a right to a military, essentially, so ordinary people don't need guns and pro-gun people employ the arguments seen so far in the thread.
In fact, the point of the second amendment is that people should be able to be properly armed so that they can prevent governmental abuse of power. Thus, given the weaponry available in this day and age, the second amendment suggests that we all have the right to own tanks, nuclear missiles, cruise missiles, rocket launchers, pretty much anything the military has. The NRA spends too much time arguing the right to hunt, which is not, in fact, a constitutional right.
Essentially, we have the Constitutional right to overthrow the government, and that is codified in the second amendment.
Despite my die-hard support for the second amendment, this quote, along with your nation's name, makes me very, very worried.

Your poor wife....


Oooh, this looks amusing.

No, I just dislike the whole 'killing' thing.


Nice rhetoric. If you mean I don't know how to shoot somebody dead, then you're right. I have fired a shotgun a couple of times - awfly noisy. Got a bit of a sore arm. Not a pleasent experience.


How, pray tell?


An immoral fear of guns?! Well, that just takes the biscuit.

'Kids these days, they're not shooting people like they used to - it's sick. Why, every upstanding person knows it's the moral way to own a gun!'


So where am I supposed to have done this?


Riiiiight. Yeah. Every time I see a gun, I get an unrational urge to stop it from dating my daughter, drinking at the same water fountain, or sitting anywhere near the front of the bus. Damn those uppity Gun fucks, we should have never let them loose from the plantations.

First you state you are Anti-gun but now you say you aren't, that you just don't like "the whole killing thing". Which is it?

You didn't respond to leaving the Doster's defenseless therefore you must not want them to be able to defend themselves.

You obviously consider yourself superior to the Doster's since you have obviously never been forced to defend your life. You also compared the Doster's to the scum that attempted to kill them and stated that they were "wrong" in defending themselves.

How do you think they should have handled the situation?

No guns, no gun death. No, people will just be blugeoned to death with baseball bats. Interesting fact, baseball bats are quite popular sales items in Britain, while almost no-one plays baseball. And bats are used in a great many crimes there, because no-one is allowed to keep guns. Personally, I think balance of power works a hell of a lot better than collective security.

While I oppose gun ownership, at least they were able to defend themselves. Good for them.

Well, the husband WAS SHOT AT!!! If I had a gun and someone shoots and misses me, I will shoot back.
Even the Police? You sure about that?

Apart from giving the robbers their percieved ability to to rob the store. No guns, no gun death. Which in your country accounts for a shocking 10 out of every 100 deaths. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html))

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not defending the robber's actions (although I would be interested in the backgrounds of the two robbers, as well as their motivations for robbing, before denouncing them as 'scum').

Let me try a different approach. How do we eliminate all the guns? You certainly haven't in your part of the world.

No, people will just be blugeoned to death with baseball bats. Interesting fact, baseball bats are quite popular sales items in Britain, while almost no-one plays baseball. And bats are used in a great many crimes there, because no-one is allowed to keep guns. Personally, I think balance of power works a hell of a lot better than collective security.

So which works better a baseball bat or a cricket bat? I'd think the wider bat would be a little easier to make contact with moving target.

How do law-abiding citizens protect themselves once their ability to acquire guns is eliminated?
What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

Also, I'm not claiming for one second the elimination of guns would turn the world into a magical land where no-one get's hurt. You'd just have 30,242 less deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

Apart from giving the robbers their percieved ability to to rob the store. No guns, no gun death. Which in your country accounts for a shocking 10 out of every 100 deaths. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html))

I think you misunderstand me - I'm not defending the robber's actions (although I would be interested in the backgrounds of the two robbers, as well as their motivations for robbing, before denouncing them as 'scum').

Try 10 out of 100,000. Not 100.

No Guns, No Death? You do realize that bats, tire irons, and knives make up the largest percentage of violent crimes and deaths right?

What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

Also, I'm not claiming for one second the elimination of guns would turn the world into a magical land where no-one get's hurt. You'd just have 30,242 less deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)

I mean that when a law-abiding citizen is confronted by a criminal with a gun, how should he protect himself? I don't believe for a moment that guns will be eliminated, only the legal means of acquisiton.

What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

Also, I'm not claiming for one second the elimination of guns would turn the world into a magical land where no-one get's hurt. You'd just have 30,242 less deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. (2002 figures

You have already stated "no guns, no death"

How do you propose removing the weapons from "everybody"?

So which works better a baseball bat or a cricket bat? I'd think the wider bat would be a little easier to make contact with moving target.
Apparently baseball bats are easier to handle, and have a bit more concentration of mass. The better for working nefarious purposes.

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

The robbers fired their guns first, trying to kill the store owners. The robbers at that time were not in danger. The store owners certainly believed that if they did nothing, they would be killed. It was one or the other. I guess you think the store owners should have just allowed themselves to be shot. THE ROBBERS HAD GUNS, AND FIRED FIRST - just in case you didn't get it the second time this information was offered to you.

Moron.

Try 10 out of 100,000. Not 100.

No Guns, No Death? You do realize that bats, tire irons, and knives make up the largest percentage of violent crimes and deaths right?
It's interesting. When you select accidental as the cause, the total number of gun deaths is 762. I'd say we need protection against criminals.

You have already stated "no guns, no death"

How do you propose removing the weapons from "everybody"?
...And then a miracle occured.

Apparently baseball bats are easier to handle, and have a bit more concentration of mass. The better for working nefarious purposes.
Come to think of it, a policeman's baton would be ideal.

What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

Also, I'm not claiming for one second the elimination of guns would turn the world into a magical land where no-one get's hurt. You'd just have 30,242 less deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. (2002 figures [/url]

Do you think that firearms should also be removed from the police and military?

Come to think of it, a policeman's baton would be ideal.

You're thinking to expensive. an 1 1/4" dow (sp) rod cut to about 18" is much cheaper and has the same effect. Available at any hardware store.

It's interesting. When you select accidental as the cause, the total number of gun deaths is 762. I'd say we need protection against criminals.

Isn't that what the police are for? OH WAIT, not according to the Supreme Court. You're on your own.

Isn't that what the police are for? OH WAIT, not according to the Supreme Court. You're on your own.
Yep, and I'm in rural Georgia.

You're thinking to expensive. an 1 1/4" dow (sp) rod cut to about 18" is much cheaper and has the same effect. Available at any hardware store.
It is "dowel" (what that means, I have no idea) and I think you'd need some more weight. A dowel rod would be more like a really annoying fly swatter. You might be able to knock out say, Kate Moss, but anyone else you'd just piss off.

First you state you are Anti-gun but now you say you aren't, that you just don't like "the whole killing thing". Which is it?
No, no, no, my dear confuzzled Kecibukia. Wrong end of the stick entirly, old boy.

I am, quite blatently anti-gun. This doesn't mean I irrationaly fear or hate them.

You obviously consider yourself superior to the Doster's since you have obviously never been forced to defend your life.
Don't understand your logic on this one. How or why would I feel superior to them if I haven't defended my life? What does defending myself have anything to do with how I view others?

You also compared the Doster's to the scum that attempted to kill them and stated that they were "wrong" in defending themselves.
Again, no. I never compared the Dosters to the robbers, I was applying your argument to them.

How do you think they should have handled the situation?
I don't know - I have no clue how I would act in a situation like that. But I probably wouldn't be in one, because I wouldn't have guns behind a counter of a shop.

to the people asking how do you defend yourself without guns, crossbows fires like gun and if you keep it loaded willl shoot just as fast.

...I don't know - I have no clue how I would act in a situation like that. But I probably wouldn't be in one, because I wouldn't have guns behind a counter of a shop.
You would be pushing up daisies.

I don't know - I have no clue how I would act in a situation like that. But I probably wouldn't be in one, because I wouldn't have guns behind a counter of a shop.

So you're saying you won't get robbed/threatened/ or killed because you don't own a gun?

to the people asking how do you defend yourself without guns, crossbows fires like gun and if you keep it loaded willl shoot just as fast.
Which of course means they would eventually be banned if guns were.

I don't know - I have no clue how I would act in a situation like that. But I probably wouldn't be in one, because I wouldn't have guns behind a counter of a shop.Which means it would be your body on the floor in a pool of blood with the coroner standing over you. Personally, I'd rather be the Dosters.

So you're saying you won't get robbed/threatened/ or killed because you don't own a gun?
Don't forget about the miracle and the elimination of all guns, everywhere.

I am, quite blatently anti-gun. This doesn't mean I irrationaly fear or hate them.




Why are you anti-gun then? If you don't want one yourself, fine,but you don't want "anybody" to own them.

So you're saying you won't get robbed/threatened/ or killed because you don't own a gun?
No. Stop making wild assumptions from my statements.

I have stated before I in no way imagine an end to guns being an end to violence.

Which means it would be your body on the floor in a pool of blood with the coroner standing over you. Personally, I'd rather be the Dosters.
Personally, I'd rather live somewhere where guns aren't readily available and the clerk at the corner shop doesn't have an itchy trigger-finger.

No. Stop making wild assumptions from my statements.

I have stated before I in no way imagine an end to guns being an end to violence.


Personally, I'd rather live somewhere where guns aren't readily available and the clerk at the corner shop doesn't have an itchy trigger-finger.
Where is that place and how did it get that way?

Why are you anti-gun then? If you don't want one yourself, fine,but you don't want "anybody" to own them.
I am against guns because they kill, maim and destroy millions of lives each year. Why do you like them?

Which means it would be your body on the floor in a pool of blood with the coroner standing over you. Personally, I'd rather be the Dosters.
Personally, I'd rather live somewhere where guns aren't readily available and the clerk at the corner shop doesn't have an itchy trigger-finger.So you'd rather be on the floor, in a pool of blood, with multiple broken bones and a open fracture of your skull because the cretin who decided to mess with you didn't have a gun but did have a bat? Seriously, people are going to kill people (or try) no matter what. It is up to the every day citizen to defend themselves effectively.

I am against guns because they kill, maim and destroy millions of lives each year. Why do you like them?
For myself, because a gun can help me and my family from becoming one of those dead or maimed. At least I can see that guns don't cause the death and destruction. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of voluntary actions.

Where is that place and how did it get that way?

It's called Britain. It got that way by a mentally ill man wandering into a Primary school and killing 15 children plus their teacher.

No. Stop making wild assumptions from my statements.

I have stated before I in no way imagine an end to guns being an end to violence.


Personally, I'd rather live somewhere where guns aren't readily available and the clerk at the corner shop doesn't have an itchy trigger-finger.

"But I probably wouldn't be in one, because I wouldn't have guns behind a counter of a shop." Your words.

"No Guns, No deaths" also your words.

So you're also stating that the Doster's had "itchy trigger-fingers" while they were being robbed and shot at?

It's called Britain. It got that way by a mentally ill man wandering into a Primary school and killing 15 children plus their teacher.
So there is no gun crime in Britain? That's going to be news to a lot of Londoners.

It's called Britain. It got that way by a mentally ill man wandering into a Primary school and killing 15 children plus their teacher.
Like we discussed above, removing guns hasn't removed violence. And actually, violence has increased in Britain since guns were banned.

So you'd rather be on the floor, in a pool of blood, with multiple broken bones and a open fracture of your skull because the cretin who decided to mess with you didn't have a gun but did have a bat?
Again, how goes the beating of the wife?

Seriously, people are going to kill people (or try) no matter what.
And it's a hell of a lot easier with a projectile-firing weapon in your hands.

to the people asking how do you defend yourself without guns, crossbows fires like gun and if you keep it loaded willl shoot just as fast.

At less range, much less lethality, and essentially useless rate of fire after the first bolt. Throw in the fact that you can't keep a lot of them at full tension constantly and you've got me wondering exactly how much you know about either weapon.

Utopio,
Good stastics on gun deaths in America are exceptionally hard to come by. I've yet to see one use what I could call objective methodology. For instance, many include suicides and criminals shot by the police among the 'accidental' deaths.

I also must join the others in questioning exactly how knowledgeable you are on this topic. Rather you personal deal with firearms or not is entirely your choice but if you're going to arguee over something, try to do it with fact in place of your personal views.

It's called Britain. It got that way by a mentally ill man wandering into a Primary school and killing 15 children plus their teacher.

Yea, that's why Parliament is having to introduce legislation "allowing" people to defend themselves against exponentially rising violent crime.

What if that teacher had been "allowed" to defend her/himself? Are you aware that armed students and teachers in the US have halted school killings by being armed?

Like we discussed above, removing guns hasn't removed violence. And actually, violence has increased in Britain since guns were banned.
Looks like an incredible failure if you ask me.
From the Investor's Business Daily, June 29, 2004

The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.

I don't think that they should have killed for any reason. I agree somewhat with Utopia about guns because I think that the average American should not own a gun. The only ones able to acquire a gun should have to take an extremely hard gun safety test and background checks. If a person has any crimes at all, they shouldn't have a gun.

So there is no gun crime in Britain? That's going to be news to a lot of Londoners.
Do you guys even read my posts? I said 'where guns aren't readily available'. Not 'where guns are non-existent'.

Like we discussed above, removing guns hasn't removed violence.
Yes, as I said twice above

And actually, violence has increased in Britain since guns were banned.
Evidence?

Utopio,
Good stastics on gun deaths in America are exceptionally hard to come by. I've yet to see one use what I could call objective methodology. For instance, many include suicides and criminals shot by the police among the 'accidental' deaths.

I also must join the others in questioning exactly how knowledgeable you are on this topic. Rather you personal deal with firearms or not is entirely your choice but if you're going to arguee over something, try to do it with fact in place of your personal views.

They could at least get the stats right. as in per 100K no 100. Was that intentional or a gross misreading ?

Again, how goes the beating of the wife?
You know, this personal attack lacks even the virtue of making sense. but then, that goes for the rest of your logic, so I shouldn't be surprised.

And it's a hell of a lot easier with a projectile-firing weapon in your hands.
Yes. Which can be made with a sharp stick, a PVC pipe and a bunch of rubber bands if you are so inclined. What do you want to do, ban all hard objects? We'd have a heck of a time trying to work with screwdrivers made out of Jell-O, I am sure.

Are you aware that armed students and teachers in the US have halted school killings by being armed?
*Slaps forehead*

If the kids had no access to guns in the first place, the entire incident wouldn't happen.

I don't think that they should have killed for any reason. I agree somewhat with Utopia about guns because I think that the average American should not own a gun. The only ones able to acquire a gun should have to take an extremely hard gun safety test and background checks. If a person has any crimes at all, they shouldn't have a gun.

So you think the couple shouldn't have defended themselves and let themselves be robbed and murdered?

Shouldn't we disarm the criminals first?

And actually, violence has increased in Britain since guns were banned.Evidence?

...Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.

To make matters worse for England --- and this is also true for Canada --- in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.(Faria MA Jr. More gun control, more crime. Human Events, July 9, 1999, p. 654)

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves," wrote the London Sunday Times (January 11, 1998), which noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of forty. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capital of the West. Where have we gone wrong?"
from http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html

Or how about this:
England's Civilian Disarmament Law Leads To 100 Year High Murder Rate
at http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html

Amazing what a little research can find you.

*Slaps forehead*

If the kids had no access to guns in the first place, the entire incident wouldn't happen.

So answer my question, do you want ALL guns banned, including police and military, or just private citizens?

Despite my die-hard support for the second amendment, this quote, along with your nation's name, makes me very, very worried.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

You know, this personal attack lacks even the virtue of making sense.
That'll be because it isn't a personal attack. It's an explanation of the Loaded Question fallacy you committed, twice. A loaded question is a question with a questionable presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded. See here (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html) for more detail.

Which can be made with a sharp stick, a PVC pipe and a bunch of rubber bands if you are so inclined.
And what's the difference between a stick a pipe, rubber bands and a gun?
A gun is the only item designed to kill.

Apart from giving the robbers their percieved ability to to rob the store. No guns, no gun death. How the hell do you intend to stop robbers getting guns? Are you god?

Isn't it great that no-one in America can get marijuana, cocaine or heroin? I mean, they can't right? Because the government, uh, like, banned it and stuff.

So answer my question, do you want ALL guns banned, including police and military, or just private citizens?
I'd love for a world-wide gun disarmament, but I'm not holding my breath. Too many lucrative arms sales to dodgy Middle Eastern or African countries for that to happen in the near future.

It's called Britain. It got that way by a mentally ill man wandering into a Primary school and killing 15 children plus their teacher.Nice to know their gun bans have eliminated gun crime. Right? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm)

Even the Police? You sure about that?

Common sense comes into play there BastardSword!

What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

So you want the crooks to have all the guns? I hope your life insurance is paid up.

How the hell do you intend to stop robbers getting guns? Are you god?

Isn't it great that no-one in America can get marijuana, cocaine or heroin? I mean, they can't right? Because the government, uh, like, banned it and stuff.
Hehe, nobody seems to realize that illegal=/=unobtainable.

I'd love for a world-wide gun disarmament, but I'm not holding my breath. Too many lucrative arms sales to dodgy Middle Eastern or African countries for that to happen in the near future.

So until then what? Just critisize people for defending themselves?

For myself, because a gun can help me and my family from becoming one of those dead or maimed. At least I can see that guns don't cause the death and destruction. Guns are inanimate objects and are incapable of voluntary actions.

Someone with a brain! You are absolutely correct my dear friend.

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

:sniper:

The robbers didn't lose their lives. They forfeit them. They assaulted, attempted robbery and attempted to murder. The end of this life is not the end of all existence, so it is good they learned a lesson on their way to the next step in their journey.

It sounds to me you would rather the public be defenseless, and just have their lives run by the whims of the thugs and hoodlums. Perhaps you are nothing more than a sympathizer of those that would victimize others. When those others stand up for themselves, you cry foul, in your own special way of course. Ah well, it is to be expected of the whiny sort... :mp5:

Someone with a brain! You are absolutely correct my dear friend.
Yay for brains!

I have to side with the people saying the store owners did the right thing here. I mean, sure I would rather it had worked out so no one got killed, but those crooks opened fire first so the couple were just defending themselves. I'm mean, they are criminals, so outlawing guns isn't going to keep them from getting them, since they are criminals which means they obviously aren't worried about breaking the law.

I'm mean, they are criminals, so outlawing guns isn't going to keep them from getting them, since they are criminals which means they obviously aren't worried about breaking the law.Well done! See how just a light usage of logic can put you a few pegs above the mass of sheeple.

...explanation of the Loaded Question fallacy you committed...
I am quite well aware of what this fallacy is. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't commit that fallacy (though I admit to using hyperbole) I'd like to point out that you are committing a fallacy known as "Changing the Suject," specifically to me. Don't be such a pedant.

And what's the difference between a stick a pipe, rubber bands and a gun?
A gun is the only item designed to kill.Actually, when you put a stick, a pipe, and some rubber bands together in the right way, they are very much designed to kill. It is the same with guns. A metal tube, breech, and firing pin coupled with a cartridge, gunpowder and shot are rather innocuous in isolation. It is the combination that can be lethal. And when we get to that, it is pretty easy to make a serviceable gun with nothing more than good high school shop class equipment. Guns are here to stay, weapons are here to stay, we should simply ensure that law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves.

Guns are here to stay, weapons are here to stay, we should simply ensure that law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves.
Tanks are here to stay, should we should ensure that law-abiding citezens have the means to defend themselves by supplying them with RPGs, landmines and heavy artillery?

I am quite well aware of what this fallacy is. Leaving aside the fact that I didn't commit that fallacy (though I admit to using hyperbole) I'd like to point out that you are committing a fallacy known as "Changing the Suject," specifically to me. Don't be such a pedant.

Actually, when you put a stick, a pipe, and some rubber bands together in the right way, they are very much designed to kill. It is the same with guns. A metal tube, breech, and firing pin coupled with a cartridge, gunpowder and shot are rather innocuous in isolation. It is the combination that can be lethal. And when we get to that, it is pretty easy to make a serviceable gun with nothing more than good high school shop class equipment. Guns are here to stay, weapons are here to stay, we should simply ensure that law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves.

Utopio would rather question the legitimacy to the right of self-defense in that the robbers (aka scum) might have had a non-ideal upbringing so that they shouldn't ge held responsible for their own actions in committing a crime . You know, it's all the society's and the guns' fault. They made the poor oppressed men rob the store.

Utopio would rather question the legitimacy to the right of self-defense in that the robbers (aka scum) might have had a non-ideal upbringing so that they shouldn't ge held responsible for their own actions in committing a crime . You know, it's all the society's and the guns' fault. They made the poor oppressed men rob the store.

Stop putting words into my mouth, it's very petty.

I have stated on several occasions during this thread that I am not defending the robber's actions in the attempted robbery.

I'm not a sociologist; I don't believe that society wholy shapes people.

Tanks are here to stay, should we should ensure that law-abiding citezens have the means to defend themselves by supplying them with RPGs, landmines and heavy artillery?

Nice dodge, and you complain about fallacies.

Why don't you answer the questions? What magical way do you plan on removing guns from everyone? Barring that, what way would you allow people to defend themselves against armed criminals?

Stop putting words into my mouth, it's very petty.

I have stated on several occasions during this thread that I am not defending the robber's actions in the attempted robbery.

No, but you critisized/questioned the victims actions and began looking for excuses for the criminals.

"What circumstances led the two men to attempt a robbery?"
"the clerk at the corner shop doesn't have an itchy trigger-finger."
" Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop."

Why don't you answer the questions?I am. My above post was not a 'dodge' as you called it. I was responding to a statement you made.

I'm answering multiple questions from multiple posters. Wait a bit and I'll get round to all of them. I'm off to bed now, so I'll continue this discussion in a few hours.

I am. My above post was not a 'dodge' as you called it. I was responding to a statement you made.

I'm answering multiple questions from multiple posters. Wait a bit and I'll get round to all of them. I'm off to bed now, so I'll continue this discussion in a few hours.

I didn't make that post, that was Ciryar. Are you incapable of keeping separate posts straight?

It is a fallacy and you're still avoiding answering questions.

I'll ask again, How do you propose the couple should have defended themselves?

I didn't make that post, that was Ciryar. Are you incapable of keeping separate posts straight?
Don't get so petty, give the guy a break. He just stated "I'm answering multiple questions from multiple posters." ...or are YOU incapable of having a civilised conversation without trying to degrade your fellow posters?

Now, onto the discussion...

I'll ask again, How do you propose the couple should have defended themselves?

Of course the couple was right to defend themselves, IMHO. I don't think Utopia is really wishing they had of been shot instead of the robbers. The guy obviously wouldn't hurt a fly, which is probably why he is so anti-gun. It is easy to make the assumption that less guns would result in lower death rates. However, after decades of having the right to bare arms, there are enough firearms in circulation to ensure people would never be short of weapons if they needed them, there is also always the possibility to illegally bring in weapons from overseas. Even if, as of this very second, all fire arms manufacturing and legal importing ceased in the US, the availability of guns would still be rife.
It is a different question all together if guns had never been invented, then of course there would be less GUN deaths but would there be less violent crimes? I doubt it, the only crimes I could see lowering would be armed robbery, as when you're faced with the choice of robbing a 7-11 with a gun or a knife, the gun is obviously the better option, if the knife was the only option, many desperate criminals may not have the nerve to rob a store with a hand-to-hand weapon. Do I know this for sure, not at all and it is really irrelevant because guns WERE invented and it is simply impractical to believe that guns could ever be removed from society at this point in time.

I don't think this incident should really be used as propaganda by other side though, as the whole situation shows both the good and the ugly side of guns. It is one thing to be glad that these couple could defend themselves with guns but you cannot also ignore the fact that guns were also an important tool used by the criminals in the original crime.

Am I anti-gun? No, I’m not. I know several gun owners and if they were ever to go out and shoot someone in cold blood, I know it wouldn’t be because they owned a gun but because of something else that drove them to commit the act. Protesting against guns, I feel, is futile. If people really want to lower violent crime rates then the source of the problems must be addressed. If this was done, in an ideal world, the gun debate would disappear as they would only be used for hunting and national defence.

I know this probably sounds similar to the way Utopia was asking about the backgrounds of the criminals but it isn’t. I feel those men deserved what they got, if all criminal acts ended with the criminals copping the raw end of the stick that would be OK with me. However, this is unfortunately a rare case, far too often it is the criminal who successfully robs the store or kills an innocent bystander (with whatever weapon) and I am simply suggesting that we should concentrate on stopping people becoming criminals in the first place, instead of arguing about what tools they use afterwards.

i carry a gun. it has saved my life on numerous occasions. i was brought up to do so. my father shot and killed a man who broke into our house. he had duct tape, a garrotte, a 18 inch machete, and pictures of my little sister in his back pack. who wants to argue with that?

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.
I want your address, since you obviously won't put up any resistance if I rob you with a firearm.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-constitutional rights agenda. I am anti-constitutional rights, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.
Let's frame the argument in proper terms, shall we?

What do you mean 'protect themselves'? I'm suggesting they don't have any weapons at all.

Also, I'm not claiming for one second the elimination of guns would turn the world into a magical land where no-one get's hurt. You'd just have 30,242 less deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. (2002 figures Source (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html)
No, many of them would be accomplished in different ways, plus you would have all the instances where crimes could be commited because guns are no longer there to defend people.

NThis doesn't mean I irrationaly fear or hate them.

He called you gun bigot, not a hoplophobe.

And it's a hell of a lot easier with a projectile-firing weapon in your hands.
Ah, but the difference is that with a gun, the weak can defend themselves against the strong.

The rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves,"
Meh, the scots have been known as A Parcel of Rogues for a while now.

Meh, the scots have been known as A Parcel of Rogues for a while now.

:D

Too true...ahem (remembers his scottish ancestry) well...maybe not...

As a Brit myself i would like to see a relaxation, to a certain extent, in our countrys gun laws.

For example this quote from a letter (source http://www.gunowners.org/op0442.htm ) is something along the lines of what i am thinking:

The UK's firearm laws are certainly ripe for overhaul. But the existing proposals will make a thoroughly bad situation even worse. I would suggest that a fresh approach based on the following principles would substantially reverse the perverse social effects outlined above:

* All adult UK residents should be entitled to a Firearms Certificate for life if they have not been convicted of a serious crime of violence for, say, 5 years. The Certificate could only be withdrawn on conviction for such an offence; or on permanent departure from the UK. The issuing authority, preferably entirely independent of the police and coming under the umbrella of a Ministry responsible for sport administration, would have no discretion to deny the Certificate when the clear and unambiguous tests of residency and clear criminal record were met. The Certificate would entitle the holder to acquire, hold, transport and use any number of any type of firearm and ammunition, including the ingredients for loading ammunition. Such a procedure would probably reduce the cost of Firearm administration by about 90%.
* Any Certificate-holder would be legally authorised to supervise any non-Certificate holder.
* A visitor's FAC (or equivalent) would be treated in a similar manner to a Driving Licence, i.e. it would automatically be accepted for periods of up to, say, 3 months.


I would only change that there would be a restriction on the fire arms available (i.e. No fully automatic weapons), and that to obtain the certificate, you would have to go on a mandatory safety course, although there would be no test to pass, although this might not be a bad idea.

Yes. Thank goodness the poor Dosters didn't lose their petty cash. Thank goodness that two humans lost their lives. Thank goodness you have the right to plaster someone's brain matter all over your shop.

Yay, yay. Ra ra ra for guns. [/deadpan]

Nice way to be a douchebag. Perhaps you missed the part where they attempted to shoot her husband! I guess he should've helped him unjam the gun and helped him aim too! Ridiculous. The Dosters protect themselves and their private property, and you drone on about how it's the poor sad pitiful pieces of shit who lost their lives....

Let's frame the argument in proper terms, shall we?

Yes but if you're going to intentionally misquote people, at least get it right :)
You're saying that because he is anti-gun, he is anti-constitutional?

First off, the constitution grantees him the right to free speech - even if it is 'anti-constitutional'.

Secondly, just because something is in the constitution, does not make it the be all and end all. This is why the constitution was allowed to be changed, as they knew that over time things would need to be changed.

An example of this would be the second amendmant! This is at the very heart of what we are discussing. In reality you should have mis-quoted pro/anti- constitutionally amended rights before you accused him of being anti-constitutional, eh?

Simply put, if you try and argue that he is anti-constitutional for wanting to change the constitution, while you use a constitutional amendment as evidence for your case, it is quite hypocritical. No pun intoned but its kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

I think its hilarious that Utopio criticizes on logical fallacies when he uses them exclusively, and almost always a different one each time.

"Tanks are here to stay, should we should ensure that law-abiding citezens have the means to defend themselves by supplying them with RPGs, landmines and heavy artillery?"

This is called a slippery slope.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

maybe I was too harsh on you Utopio, as I read more and more of your posts I realized how disillusioned you really are. You believe that guns kill people, that the inanimate object is the reason that people kill other people, perhaps it has something to do with the person who obtained the weapon (legally or illegally). Now if we disarm all law abiding citizens of every country, do you think that prevents criminals from obtaining firearms or equally deadly items? No it does not. In the US (in most states), a person must not only pass firearm safety courses and tests, but they must also go through a tedious registration process of each weapon they purchase, and must have never commited a violent crime or felony. The felons who have guns, didn't go into the local gun store and buy it legally, they either stole it or bought it from someone that sells to shady characters.

Now that we have that out of the way, the Dosters were working so they could live their everyday lives, they did not ask or want these two jackasses to come in and shout and fire at them. However these two jackasses did, and when the Dosters realized that they had to either: a) Get shot b) lose alot of money that they had worked hard for, and still be shot or c) Fight back....they chose the logical choice C. Take this image into your mind Utopio, you're running a small business...you run it with your wife or husband, two punks come in demand YOUR money, and when they feel you don't meet their expectations they shoot at YOUR Spouse. How do you react?

I think its hilarious that Utopio criticizes on logical fallacies when he uses them exclusively, and almost always a different one each time.

"Tanks are here to stay, should we should ensure that law-abiding citezens have the means to defend themselves by supplying them with RPGs, landmines and heavy artillery?"

This is called a slippery slope.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Lol, I admit the guy didn't choose his words ideally but this is a common line of thought for many anti-gun posts. The real question that underlies it is, of course;

where do we draw the line on what arms people have the right to bear and more importantly why do we draw it there?

Can someone answer, I'd be interested to hear what gun restriction guide lines the US have.

Observation:, the article is highly misleading.

It tries to make it as though the owners just started firing as soon as the robbers appeared: "... owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire."

In reality of course it appears they were quite willing to give the robbers money, and only fought back when the robbers tried to kill one of them: "She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed. At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects."

That's a completely different story, but you wouldn't know it from quickly scanning the first few lines of the article. Why am I not surprised?


P.S. Oh, and he shot "one of the *suspects*"? They're not actually robbers yet? Whatever.

Lol, I admit the guy didn't choose his words ideally but this is a common line of thought for many anti-gun posts. The real question that underlies it is, of course;

where do we draw the line on what arms people have the right to bear and more importantly why do we draw it there?

Can someone answer, I'd be interested to hear what gun restriction guide lines the US have.

"Arms" is not the same as "weapons". I would propose the following guidelines for arms: they have to be personal, individual weapons; they have to be portable; and they have to be meant for use against distinct individuals. The standard infantry weapons issued to every soldier (excluding area weapons) are a good example of "arms". An M16 rifle or M9 handgun is "arms", a SAW is an in-between, but an M60 machine gun or Mark-19 is not arms (because it's crew-served). Grenades and claymores are not arms (because they're area-effect), and anti-armor/anti-aircraft weapons are not arms (because they are not intended for use against individuals). Another way to put it: arms is anything you *could* fight a duel with.

What the US actually has: we distinguish between firearms and "destructive devices". Cannon (defined by caliber), artillery, mines, grenades, etc. fall in the "destructive devices" category and are generally prohibited. Full-auto firearms and some other types are closely regulated. Everything else is ok.

(Note: This may not be entirely accurate, maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me?)

I want your address, since you obviously won't put up any resistance if I rob you with a firearm.
There we go! This reminds me of something I read a while ago. Every single advocate of eliminating access to guns should be willing to post a sign in their window that 'This is a Gun Free House", or business, or whatever. Let them quit hiding behind the protection that the gun owners have bought them.

Yes but if you're going to intentionally misquote people, at least get it right :)
You're saying that because he is anti-gun, he is anti-constitutional?

First off, the constitution grantees him the right to free speech - even if it is 'anti-constitutional'.

Secondly, just because something is in the constitution, does not make it the be all and end all. This is why the constitution was allowed to be changed, as they knew that over time things would need to be changed.

An example of this would be the second amendmant! This is at the very heart of what we are discussing. In reality you should have mis-quoted pro/anti- constitutionally amended rights before you accused him of being anti-constitutional, eh?

Simply put, if you try and argue that he is anti-constitutional for wanting to change the constitution, while you use a constitutional amendment as evidence for your case, it is quite hypocritical. No pun intoned but its kind of shooting yourself in the foot.

Utopia is a Brit. He doesn't have a Constitution that he can refer to. It's whatever the majority thinks is best at the moment, subject to some votes in Parliment.

"Arms" is not the same as "weapons". I would propose the following guidelines for arms: they have to be personal, individual weapons; they have to be portable; and they have to be meant for use against distinct individuals. The standard infantry weapons issued to every soldier (excluding area weapons) are a good example of "arms". An M16 rifle or M9 handgun is "arms", a SAW is an in-between, but an M60 machine gun or Mark-19 is not arms (because it's crew-served). Grenades and claymores are not arms (because they're area-effect), and anti-armor/anti-aircraft weapons are not arms (because they are not intended for use against individuals). Another way to put it: arms is anything you *could* fight a duel with.

What the US actually has: we distinguish between firearms and "destructive devices". Cannon (defined by caliber), artillery, mines, grenades, etc. fall in the "destructive devices" category and are generally prohibited. Full-auto firearms and some other types are closely regulated. Everything else is ok.

(Note: This may not be entirely accurate, maybe someone more knowledgeable can correct me?)
There is a legal principle that is involved. I can't remember the Latin name, but it means that the government has some discretion in what it allows citizens to do because of it's overriding interest in public safety. I'll look for it when I get a chance. Anyhow, this principle is how the government can ban citizens from owning tanks and anti-aircraft missiles.

Utopia is a Brit. He doesn't have a Constitution that he can refer to. It's whatever the majority thinks is best at the moment, subject to some votes in Parliment.

I guess the whole thing about him being anti-constitutional is irrelevant in the first place, though being anti-gun still isn't anti-constitutional in the US.

As for people who don't support guns having to put up signs out the front of their houses, it is sad that people need guns in their houses to protect themselves. I guess things are a lot different over here (Australia) and it's kinda scary to me that things are like that over there.

Stop putting words into my mouth, it's very petty.

I have stated on several occasions during this thread that I am not defending the robber's actions in the attempted robbery.

I'm not a sociologist; I don't believe that society wholy shapes people.

You may not be defending the robbers but by god, you have condemned the the owners for killing the crooks.

i carry a gun. it has saved my life on numerous occasions. i was brought up to do so. my father shot and killed a man who broke into our house. he had duct tape, a garrotte, a 18 inch machete, and pictures of my little sister in his back pack. who wants to argue with that?I think we should all read and think about this post for a minute.
Then reflect that, similarly to what I said above, it isn't hard at all to make a machete.
Then reflect, if you have any experience with knife fights, that no-one ever comes out of one with being cut, and usually badly.
I don't own a gun, though I support gun rights, but after that reflection, I am going to go out and buy a handgun now.

I guess the whole thing about him being anti-constitutional is irrelevant in the first place, though being anti-gun still isn't anti-constitutional in the US.

As for people who don't support guns having to put up signs out the front of their houses, it is sad that people need guns in their houses to protect themselves. I guess things are a lot different over here (Australia) and it's kinda scary to me that things are like that over there.
I'm not trying to be belligerent, but sometimes things come out that way. Anyhow, is there really no serious violent crime in Australia? I know that personal weapons have been confiscated, but what about criminals? Can't they still acquire weapons?

May I point out that the woman CLAIMED that the robbers shot at her husband...there is no PROOF, no video-tape...just her word.

I guess if I just blew two souls away, I'd tell the cops they shot at me, too. Maybe the ROBBERS shot in self-defence? Maybe they came in, waved their guns around, the shop-owners started shooting and the robbers shot back??

Facts, people...we don't have facts.

Oh, and I do believe that peiople should be able to protect themselves.

May I point out that the woman CLAIMED that the robbers shot at her husband...there is no PROOF, no video-tape...just her word.

I guess if I just blew two souls away, I'd tell the cops they shot at me, too. Maybe the ROBBERS shot in self-defence? Maybe they came in, waved their guns around, the shop-owners started shooting and the robbers shot back??

Facts, people...we don't have facts.

Oh, and I do believe that peiople should be able to protect themselves.
The prosecutor involved isn't going to charge the couple. Apparently he's satisfied. I'm sure you could write him a letter and complain, though.

I'm surprised people think a quick, easy death is a worse punishment than spending your life locked up in a prison cell :/
If i had to kill someone i'd do it in a state with the death penalty rather than waste my life behind bars.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but sometimes things come out that way. Anyhow, is there really no serious violent crime in Australia? I know that personal weapons have been confiscated, but what about criminals? Can't they still acquire weapons?

After the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in which a mentally ill guy by the name of Martin Bryant gunned down dozens of innocent men, women, and children in 1996 the government banned ALL personal firearms, and held an amnesty during which people went and handed in their guns and were payed. Possession of a firearm is now completely illegal, unless you have a special permit, for instance, if you live on a farm, you may apply to have a rifle, although the serial number is recorded for very, very easy identification should you choose to use the weapon for nefarious purposes. These records are permanently stored by the Australian Federal Police and by the State Police.

To answer your question, hell yes, criminals can still get guns. Easily, too. Especially in parts of Sydney, such as Bankstown, Punchbown, and Greenacre, all of which contain an extremely high concentration of immigrant Lebanese residents and a low education ratio. So in effect, the only thing that's happened is that law-abiding citizens don't have guns, but everyone else does. Which basically means that if someone breaks into your home, which happens a LOT, especially in the aforementioned suburbs, people are almost completely defenceless. Not that that stops some people, for instance last year when a guy in a balaclava burst into a Bankstown 24 hour petrol station in the early hours brandishing a gun, the attendant on duty proceeded to bash him to death with a golf club he had under the counter. He was charged, and found not guilty. Same with the two guys who burst into a service station around my area last month, both had guns. The attendant was shot as the men walked in at about 3 am. He was hit in the shoulder, but managed to pick up a steel pipe and attack the two guys, hospitalizing one and putting the other into a coma for a week and a half.

Banning guns will do nothing. People will always improvise, like the hiv-pos junkies who've taken to using blood-filled syringes as weapons.

But that's just my view.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but sometimes things come out that way. Anyhow, is there really no serious violent crime in Australia? I know that personal weapons have been confiscated, but what about criminals? Can't they still acquire weapons?

That's cool, I didn't think you were trying to be belligerent or anything, don't worry. I'm not really taking a pro or anti gun stance, just trying to look into the situation a bit more and try and understand where people are coming from.

It's not that there aren’t violent crimes in Australia, we have our share certainly; I don't know how the rates compare to the US however. I get the feeling they might not be as regular here as over there. I think it's more the way we perceive things too. People don't really carry guns in their houses to protect themselves as much as they seem to over there. Sure, some people still do sometimes but I'd suggest a much lower percentage than in the US. I don't know why it is, guns aren't as readily available but I'm sure a criminal could still acquire one easily enough and I know a few people who own guns, primarily for sport or personal interest rather than self defence though.
I wish I did know; the best thing I can think of is that it is quite easy to get welfare over here and the rates are pretty generous compared to what little I know of the US system, my best guess is that perhaps people aren't as desperate to commit need-for-money based crimes as they are in the States. I’d love to here some thoughts from you guys in the US and the UK about that matter.

BTW Semi-automatic guns are illegal over here, I think there may be some exceptions for hunting or commercial purposes (and police & military offcourse) and I am not too sure on the specifics, perhaps a fellow Aussie on these forums might know a little bit more? People can still own hand guns, certain rifles, shot guns etc still but there are stricter rules on licensing and gun storage.
EDIT: There we go, the guy above provided some more details than me.

Anyway, I need to get to sleep, happy posting!

Let's frame the argument in proper terms, shall we?

The 2nd ammendment is just that - an amendment, designed to alter or change the constitution, and something that can itself be amended.

This is called a slippery slope.
This was sarcasm.

The 2nd ammendment is just that - an amendment, designed to alter or change the constitution, and something that can itself be amended.

You're right, never mind that it's part of the Bill of Rights. Do you feel that those rights should be removed/amended?

The 2nd ammendment is just that - an amendment, designed to alter or change the constitution, and something that can itself be amended.
Um, yeah, like that to free speech, or of blacks to vote, or women to vote...hell, let's toss the whole system and go straight to anarchy.
Just a tip, Utopio, don't argue, as a Brit, that we should get rid of fundamental rights of our society. You'll only draw flames and lose what little stature you had as a well-reasoned opponent.

... perhaps people aren't as desperate to commit need-for-money based crimes as they are in the States. ...Almost no-one commits crimes for need. They do it for a variety of reasons, usually greed, or drugs (I guess you might call that a need, but it is their own fault they are in that predicament). Anyway, I don't think buying off criminals is a healthy way to run a society either.

Almost no-one commits crimes for need. They do it for a variety of reasons, usually greed, or drugs (I guess you might call that a need, but it is their own fault they are in that predicament). Anyway, I don't think buying off criminals is a healthy way to run a society either.

Howabout the Gov't paying the criminals to sue/threaten their victim? Which country does that? Oh right, the UK where guns aren't readily available, except to criminals.

I have only this to say..drugs are illegal correct? You can still however obtain drugs. Guns in the hands of criminals are illegal in the US, correct? Criminals can still obtain guns. Where there is a will there is a way. Folks will traffic in an illegal guntrade and it will be possible for certain unwanted folks to get firearms. By vastly removing firearms from the public then you create a burden unless the police are in enough numbers to be able to handle such situations. Myself coming from NYC know of how strict the gunlaws here are. I personally dont mind them..better to be mugged at knife point than at gunpoint frankly..but I know buisness owners are protected because there are special provisions to make it easier for them to get gun permits. I also know the NYPD works doubly to remove illegal guns from the street. That is an exception to the rule though.

Not all guns will get off the street, and you'll have that situation in which next time the gun wont jam. And some scumbag(yes they are scumbags for holding up what literally is a Mom and Pop business) will end up killing a pair of elderly people for the sole infraction of not being able to open the cash register fast enough.

You're right, never mind that it's part of the Bill of Rights. Do you feel that those rights should be removed/amended?

Surely the point of amendments is that they emphasise the fact that the Bill of Rights wasn't good enough at first. Why is it that amendments were ok then but aren't now? :confused:

Um, yeah, like that to free speech, or of blacks to vote, or women to vote...hell, let's toss the whole system and go straight to anarchy.
Just a tip, Utopio, don't argue, as a Brit, that we should get rid of fundamental rights of our society. You'll only draw flames and lose what little stature you had as a well-reasoned opponent.

Sounds like you're saying something should be justified because it's in the Bill of Rights, not in and for itself, which is a bit daft imo. If you're not and you're seriously believe in discussing the issue as a political ethic, then you don't have to be American to be morrally right (or wrong). Some african races may have been founded on the idea that murder is morally acceptable, does that make it so?
Secondly - just because there are other things on the Bill of rights which are commendable (such as free speech, rights to vote etc) doesnt mean its' all perfect.

Edit: bloody teh.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-gun agenda. I am anti-gun, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.

You must be unfamiliar with the statistics. Most violent crime in the US is perpetrated without a firearm. If you eliminated all violent crime committed with firearms, you would only reduce violent crime by seven percent.

Oh, that's really doing something. If the store owners didn't have guns, these men could have walked in with their bare hands and beaten two old people to death and taken their money.

Guns give the weak their only chance to survive when the police are not around.

The 2nd ammendment is just that - an amendment, designed to alter or change the constitution, and something that can itself be amended.

And it wont because the people will not tolerate it.

I do know that San Fran is trying to ban Hand guns but the problem is that the law will violate the US Constitution and I'm willing to bet that we'll see an increase in violence if and when it passes.

Surely the point of amendments is that they emphasise the fact that the Bill of Rights wasn't good enough at first. Why is it that amendments were ok then but aren't now? :confused:



Sounds like you're saying something should be justified because it's in the Bill of Rights, not in and for itself, which is a bit daft imo. If you're not and you're seriously believe in discussing the issue as a political ethic, then you don't have to be American to be morrally right (or wrong). Some african races may have been founded on the idea that murder is morally acceptable, does that make it so?
Secondly - just because there are other things on the Bill of rights (such as free speech, rights to vote etc) doesnt mean its' all perfect.

Edit: bloody teh.


I've seen this arguement before..in a newspaper and the response to it was pretty simple.

Okay the Bill of Rights was devised hundreds of years ago, it was designed by people who were afraid that the regular constitution wasnt enough to protect the people from the government. So they decided on ten basic laws which bound the governments hands in certain aspects. There was provision so that additional amendments could be added or subtracted as needed. However the first ten are considered the core. They're pretty much sacred, for their own special reasons. Even if they may seem outdated..such as titles of nobility..we dont have a monarchy so why have that amendment? Doesnt make sense does it? But it does provide a way of keeping nobility from popping up in the US. We have military bases but the whole quartering of troops amendment still exists..so why does the second amendment still exist?

Quite simply Americans know better than to trust their own government. This country was built upon a distrust of government. We didnt trust the British to be in our best interests anymore so they had to go. And to prevent such a government from occuring in the US we kept that provision in the constitution. Of course the solution to keeping and bearing of arms was to drill the people repeatedly and take a strict interpetation of the second amendment..but anyway..it doesnt get changed because those are considered part of the basic freedoms our very founding fathers had in mind when they set up the country..why screw with that?

Surely the point of amendments is that they emphasise the fact that the Bill of Rights wasn't good enough at first. Why is it that amendments were ok then but aren't now? :confused:



Sounds like you're saying something should be justified because it's in the Bill of Rights, not in and for itself, which is a bit daft imo. If you're not and you're seriously believe in discussing the issue as a political ethic, then you don't have to be American to be morrally right (or wrong). Some african races may have been founded on the idea that murder is morally acceptable, does that make it so?
Secondly - just because there are other things on the Bill of rights which are commendable (such as free speech, rights to vote etc) doesnt mean its' all perfect.

Edit: bloody teh.


The Bill of Rights are Amendments. The rest are to make changes in the US Constitution (ie 2 term presidency and directy elected senators) and to INCREASE the rights of the citizenry (ie women & blacks voting). Amendments are not intended to remove rights.

I agree the BOR is not perfect , nothing is but I'll be damned if someone will take them away because they feel something is "outdated" or "no longer applicable".

Oh..and Utopio..what is it with you and the whole beating of the wife issue? Everytime someone presents something even remotely pro-gun you ask if they stopped beating their wife. I can assure you that wife beaters are not confined simply to those who own guns. Its an unfair inflammatory distinction and rather childish to bring up..especially when you then attempt to claim logical fallacies in other peoples arguements.

Oh..and Utopio..what is it with you and the whole beating of the wife issue? Everytime someone presents something even remotely pro-gun you ask if they stopped beating their wife. I can assure you that wife beaters are not confined simply to those who own guns. Its an unfair inflammatory distinction and rather childish to bring up..especially when you then attempt to claim logical fallacies in other peoples arguements.

It's Utopio's way to avoid answering questions that he/she considers "loaded". Really just a way to avoid all questions.

It's Utopio's way to avoid answering questions that he/she considers "loaded". Really just a way to avoid all questions.

Nah..there just had to be a much better reason. Right, Utopio?

Surely the point of amendments is that they emphasise the fact that the Bill of Rights wasn't good enough at first. Why is it that amendments were ok then but aren't now? :confused:
The Bill of Rights are all amendments. Just thought I'd point that out.

Sounds like you're saying something should be justified because it's in the Bill of Rights, not in and for itself, which is a bit daft imo. I am not. However, I do think the Bill of Rights is a pretty good elucidation of what is justifiable. Locke's negative rights and all.

If you're not and you're seriously believe in discussing the issue as a political ethic, then you don't have to be American to be morrally right (or wrong). Some african races may have been founded on the idea that murder is morally acceptable, does that make it so?No, you don't have to be American to be morally right or wrong. And just because you can make up ludicrous examples denigrating an entire continent doesn't mean you are a good debater. It means you are making strawmen.
Secondly - just because there are other things on the Bill of rights which are commendable (such as free speech, rights to vote etc) doesnt mean its' all perfect.No, that fact doesn't. However, the Bill of Rights is, as I said above, an excellent summary of what right humans have. Of course, to believe any of that, you have to believe that freedom from opression, freedom from imposition, freedom from tyranny and such are good things. If you don't, then I don't care where your traditions came from, you are wrong.

The Bill of Rights are Amendments. The rest are to make changes in the US Constitution (ie 2 term presidency and directy elected senators) and to INCREASE the rights of the citizenry (ie women & blacks voting). Amendments are not intended to remove rights.

I agree the BOR is not perfect , nothing is but I'll be damned if someone will take them away because they feel something is "outdated" or "no longer applicable".

Bleh, i always forget whether the bill of rights was the original constitution or the amendments. American politics isnt my strong suit :P
The fact that all the amendments were designed to increase civil rights is a good one, but only if you take civil rights as the ultimate end (and thus any reduction of civil rights is diminishing life), which i don't.
Take this development of English law, for example:

There is a partial defence* to murder called 'provocation'. This was initially brought in to cover men who found their wifes commiting adultery. Now in modern times, it's considered both sexist and morally suspect, so that particular caveat was removed, which arguably constitutes and infringement of human rights - but for the greater good of moral integrity in society.**

Now, i'm, not saying that the second amendment is sexist, it's obviously not. Just saying that in my opinion civil rights are not the ultimate end of society, therefore a reduction of rights is not always a negative thing if it benefits society in some way. Whether removing the 2nd amendment has greater benifits or not i'm not sure - gun laws aren't my speciality - but just because it is a right doesnt make it good.

*It's only partial because it reduces a sentence to manslaughter (there's no absolute defence to murder).
**That's the jist of things and it's good enough for illustration, might not be 100% totally accurate.

If people have a right to defend themselves, and have the right to bear arms, it is true that the exercise of these rights is not always "good". In any case where someone must use force of arms to defend themselves or their liberty, someone is going to get hurt or killed.

The alternative, however, is darker. If you are deprived of your liberty, if you are deprived of your life, or if some terrible crime is commited upon your person such as rape, then I feel that the balance of things is best served by using force to prevent those occurrences.

I'm sure the dead felon might argue with that conclusion.

Edit: sorry for sparse quoting, i didn't want to make an extremely-long post of what you said when it didn't seem necessary.

No, you don't have to be American to be morally right or wrong.

No, that fact doesn't. However, the Bill of Rights is, as I said above, an excellent summary of what right humans have.

So when you said:

Um, yeah, like that to free speech, or of blacks to vote, or women to vote...hell, let's toss the whole system and go straight to anarchy.
Just a tip, Utopio, don't argue, as a Brit, that we should get rid of fundamental rights of our society. You'll only draw flames and lose what little stature you had as a well-reasoned opponent.

You meant to say:

'Utopio, you're entirely entitled to your own opinion on the matter. The only argument i have against you is that personally i think the Bill of Rights is great'

?

'Utopio, you're entirely entitled to your own opinion on the matter. The only argument i have against you is that personally i think the Bill of Rights is great'

?

You meant to say:

'Utopio, you're entirely entitled to your own opinion on the matter. The only argument i have against you is that you didn't read the article posted, questioned the integrity of a couple in mortal danger, attempted to turn the two low life criminals into the victims, either intentionally or accidentally skewed statistics, and refused to answer questions except w/" have you stopped beating your wife" and refused to acknowledge your own wording when it was turned around on you.

I think that would be more accurate.

Apparently, the mother of one of the dead felons is now saying that it was racism.

Well, I suppose that if someone of a race (and I don't believe in race in any case) apparently different from my own (what race am I anyway) was shooting at me and missing, I don't think I'd let them continue with no objections.

Shooting back would be in order. But not because I'm a racist. I just prefer to remain alive, in one piece, and not suffer lead poisoning.

You meant to say:

'Utopio, you're entirely entitled to your own opinion on the matter. The only argument i have against you is that you didn't read the article posted, questioned the integrity of a couple in mortal danger, attempted to turn the two low life criminals into the victims, either intentionally or accidentally skewed statistics, and refused to answer questions except w/" have you stopped beating your wife" and refused to acknowledge your own wording when it was turned around on you.

I think that would be more accurate.
Exactly. And I would also add "you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep it on that side of the pond, and consider, occasionally, what that opinion is doing to your country."

yes. the right to bear arms. thank god for guns when gun-toting robbers are abroad. have a word with yourselves. :headbang:

yes. the right to bear arms. thank god for guns when gun-toting robbers are abroad. have a word with yourselves. :headbang:

The vast majority of robbers in the US are not carrying guns. So thank God I have one, because an unarmed robber won't stand much of a chance.

Or should I just give an unarmed man my money, my car, and let him rape my ass and then choke me to death and chop my body into little pieces?

Apparently, the mother of one of the dead felons is now saying that it was racism.

Well, I suppose that if someone of a race (and I don't believe in race in any case) apparently different from my own (what race am I anyway) was shooting at me and missing, I don't think I'd let them continue with no objections.

Shooting back would be in order. But not because I'm a racist. I just prefer to remain alive, in one piece, and not suffer lead poisoning.


Yea its funny..remember that big shoot out between police and those two bankrobbers in body armor with Ak-47s? Their families sued the LAPD saying they didnt have to kill the suspects and that the LAPD took too long in securing the area so that an ambulance could arrive safely.

Exactly. And I would also add "you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep it on that side of the pond, and consider, occasionally, what that opinion is doing to your country."

How do you mean "what that opinion is doing to your country." To be fair, although gun crime has risen, most of the victims have been in gangs or gang related. Also, the amount of actual gun murders are still comparatively small compared to a great many other nations. So as to what it is doing to our country is precisely nothing. Although opinion is divided, and i myself do not agree with utopia, it is NOT to the detriment of our country, so please do not think of it as doing such.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:38 AM EST (1238 GMT)

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- When two men walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot, owners Bobby and Gloria Doster never hesitated. The pair pulled out their own pistols and opened fire.



and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.

British and proud

and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.

British and proud
Considering the thrashing your opinion has recieved in this thread, I'd reconsider that statment if I were you, after looking at the proof that Britain has a higher crime rate than the US, a trend that only came about after you guys banned guns. Read above for the link.

Yea its funny..remember that big shoot out between police and those two bankrobbers in body armor with Ak-47s? Their families sued the LAPD saying they didnt have to kill the suspects and that the LAPD took too long in securing the area so that an ambulance could arrive safely.

How about this one!

A 12 yo kid steals car! Police chase car that the 12 yo kid stole. 12 Yo ditches car and runs on foot. Cops chase the kid. One cop goes down followed by a shot. Other cop shoots and kills the kid.

This took place in Pittsburgh. The 12 yo kid was Black. The cops was a black and white duo. The black cop was the one that tripped and then the shot fired. It was the white cop that killed the 12 yo black kid.

Parents wanted the WHITE officer's badge for a racist killing. Nothing happened to either cop.

Another story out of pittsburgh. Police Dog bites black boy. The parents wanted the police dog destroyed because the dog was racist. Problem is DOGS are color blind so how could it be racist?

it is NOT to the detriment of our country, so please do not think of it as doing such.Actually it is. If you read above, several of us posted links to studies proving that your skyrocketing crime rate is linked to the fact that you all banned guns.

How about this one!

A 12 yo kid steals car! Police chase car that the 12 yo kid stole. 12 Yo ditches car and runs on foot. Cops chase the kid. One cop goes down followed by a shot. Other cop shoots and kills the kid.

This took place in Pittsburgh. The 12 yo kid was Black. The cops was a black and white duo. The black cop was the one that tripped and then the shot fired. It was the white cop that killed the 12 yo black kid.

Parents wanted the WHITE officer's badge for a racist killing. Nothing happened to either cop.

Another story out of pittsburgh. Police Dog bites black boy. The parents wanted the police dog destroyed because the dog was racist. Problem is DOGS are color blind so how could it be racist?
Interesting points. If you could start a thread with some intelligent debate on it, that would be a better forum. We're talking gun rights here.

Actually it is. If you read above, several of us posted links to studies proving that your skyrocketing crime rate is linked to the fact that you all banned guns.

Take the guns out of law-abiding citizens and only the criminals will have guns.

Known Fact.

Another story out of pittsburgh. Police Dog bites black boy. The parents wanted the police dog destroyed because the dog was racist. Problem is DOGS are color blind so how could it be racist?
Oh, Goddess above, this is just ludicrous. What have we done to ourselves?

Society needs an overhaul.

and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.

British and proud

I guess this explains the increase in gun violence in Britain after the gun ban.

I guess it explains why every US state that has concealed carry has experienced substantial drops in gun violence, and why states that prohibit concealed carry have rising gun violence.

I guess it explains why violent felons in the US use a gun only 7 percent of the time.

I guess it explains why 2.5 million crimes are stopped by civilians just presenting, not firing, a gun. Every year in the US.

Another story out of pittsburgh. Police Dog bites black boy. The parents wanted the police dog destroyed because the dog was racist. Problem is DOGS are color blind so how could it be racist?
I suppose the dog could be racist because it can tell the difference between different shades of color, but I doubt that had anything to do with it. I think rather the kid probably did something stupid to provoke the dog.

Interesting points. If you could start a thread with some intelligent debate on it, that would be a better forum. We're talking gun rights here.

I was building up what New York and Jersey was saying about the cops and provided some examples.

I do have another one on this topic though

A guy broke into someone's home. The person occupying the house shot the would be assailent and killed him and the cops charged him with man slaughter. Apparently his gun was never registered but he used it for its intended purpose and that is Self-Defense.

I don't know whom to support here but I leaned towards the gun owner because he was defending his family. Don't know what came from this case.

I think we should all read and think about this post for a minute.
Then reflect that, similarly to what I said above, it isn't hard at all to make a machete.
Then reflect, if you have any experience with knife fights, that no-one ever comes out of one with being cut, and usually badly.
I don't own a gun, though I support gun rights, but after that reflection, I am going to go out and buy a handgun now.
i am glad to be of some help. the world is a fucked up place. people get killed all the time. i encourage all the anti gun, anti violence posters on this site to spend one hour looking at
http://id-wanted.org/
and
http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/gallery/ncmalistview.php?wstr=Unresolved&alpha=%
and you may think differently.

and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.
No, then it would be only the robbers that have them.

Kecibukia - my reply was to Ciryar's quoting of a specific, totally legitimate point which had nothing to do with whether or not Utopia might have said other things in compeltely different posts.

Exactly. And I would also add "you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep it on that side of the pond, and consider, occasionally, what that opinion is doing to your country."

God forbid someone might come onto an international message board and have an opinion. If you have a problem with other people's opinions then i reccomend you and your arrogance sit at home in the dark with your hands in your ears.

and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.

British and proud
it is not always about guns. or robbers just wanting drug money. read my first post on this site, page 8. and think...

God forbid someone might come onto an international message board and have an opinion. If you have a problem with other people's opinions then i reccomend you and your arrogance sit at home in the dark with your hands in your ears.My problem isn't with his opinion. My problem is with the fact that
a)his opinion is screwing his country and
b)he thinks his opinion ought to accepted here.
I've noted your recommendations, but don't expect any action on them.

If people have a right to defend themselves, and have the right to bear arms, it is true that the exercise of these rights is not always "good". In any case where someone must use force of arms to defend themselves or their liberty, someone is going to get hurt or killed.

The alternative, however, is darker. If you are deprived of your liberty, if you are deprived of your life, or if some terrible crime is commited upon your person such as rape, then I feel that the balance of things is best served by using force to prevent those occurrences.

I'm sure the dead felon might argue with that conclusion.
Speaking of the dead scum. One of their mothers was crying on the local news last night. She cried about her son wasn't bad and sure, he shouldn't have robbed that store, and sure he shouldn't have had that gun. But he really was a good boy and didn't deserve to be shot dead. Then she went on to moan that it was racist that he was killed.

Give me a break!

Apparently, the mother of one of the dead felons is now saying that it was racism.

Well, I suppose that if someone of a race (and I don't believe in race in any case) apparently different from my own (what race am I anyway) was shooting at me and missing, I don't think I'd let them continue with no objections.

Shooting back would be in order. But not because I'm a racist. I just prefer to remain alive, in one piece, and not suffer lead poisoning.

Hey WL, do you live in Atlanta?

Speaking of the dead scum. One of their mothers was crying on the local news last night. She cried about her son wasn't bad and sure, he shouldn't have robbed that store, and sure he shouldn't have had that gun. But he really was a good boy and didn't deserve to be shot dead. Then she went on to moan that it was racist that he was killed.

Give me a break!

Why is it that when a black person gets killed in the act of committing a crime its racist but when a white person gets killed by a black dude it isn't? Does anyone see the stupidity in this?

I blame the NAACP for this!

Then she went on to moan that it was racist that he was killed.I really think you ought to start an "Intelligent discussion of racism" thread with points like this. On this point though, something about the almighty culture of the victim deserves to be skewered.

and if people din't have the right to bear arms then the robbers wouldn't have had one.

British and proud
...and naive as hell.

How about this one!

A 12 yo kid steals car! Police chase car that the 12 yo kid stole. 12 Yo ditches car and runs on foot. Cops chase the kid. One cop goes down followed by a shot. Other cop shoots and kills the kid.

This took place in Pittsburgh. The 12 yo kid was Black. The cops was a black and white duo. The black cop was the one that tripped and then the shot fired. It was the white cop that killed the 12 yo black kid.

Parents wanted the WHITE officer's badge for a racist killing. Nothing happened to either cop.

Another story out of pittsburgh. Police Dog bites black boy. The parents wanted the police dog destroyed because the dog was racist. Problem is DOGS are color blind so how could it be racist?

There is only one proper end to a car chase. This is it.

There is only one proper end to a car chase. This is it.

Sadly enough I have to agree with your statement.

I started a "Racism" thread.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Posted: 7:38 AM EST (1238 GMT)

She said she tried to open the register, but one of the men told her she wasn't moving fast enough and tried to shoot her husband. He missed -- and his gun jammed.

At that point, Bobby Doster pulled out a .380-caliber handgun and shot one of the suspects. Gloria Doster then went for a 9 mm pistol she keeps near the register.

Both suspects took cover behind the store's meat counter as the Dosters opened fire. Gloria Doster said she doesn't know how many bullets were fired, or how many times the suspects were hit.



So he missed, and then his gun jammed.so now we have two robbers standing in front of a counter with embarrassed looks on their faces cause they're bad shots and their gun is now about as useful as an ormant. The old people THEN draw their guns, after the shot has been fired and the gun jammed, and carried on firing as the suspects tried to take cover. You're telling me he can draw a gun so fast he didn't see the gun was jammed, and she didnt notice them diving for cover when she pulled out a 9mm?

So he missed, and then his gun jammed.so now we have two robbers standing in front of a counter with embarrassed looks on their faces cause they're bad shots and their gun is now about as useful as an ormant. The old people THEN draw their guns, after the shot has been fired and the gun jammed, and carried on firing as the suspects tried to take cover. You're telling me he can draw a gun so fast he didn't see the gun was jammed, and she didnt notice them diving for cover when she pulled out a 9mm?
It only takes a few seconds to clear a jam. Pull the slide back, watch the bad round eject, let the slide chamber another round. Why give the scum that opportunity.

So he missed, and then his gun jammed.so now we have two robbers standing in front of a counter with embarrassed looks on their faces cause they're bad shots and their gun is now about as useful as an ormant. The old people THEN draw their guns, after the shot has been fired and the gun jammed, and carried on firing as the suspects tried to take cover. You're telling me he can draw a gun so fast he didn't see the gun was jammed, and she didnt notice them diving for cover when she pulled out a 9mm?

Uhhh... They were going to give them the money and, when they weren't moving fast enough to suit them, then and only then did they fire a shot. Didn't you noticed that the gun JAMMED? Either there was only one bullet or it truely did jam up making sure no bullet would fly out. That was when the the .380 calibor gun came out and fired at them. This was purely self defense in my book.

Where are you getting the 9mm out of this?

It only takes a few seconds to clear a jam. Pull the slide back, watch the bad round eject, let the slide chamber another round. Why give the scum that opportunity.

I wouldn't. I shoot first and ask questions later if a crook takes a pot shot at me and somehow misses me.

I wouldn't. I shoot first and ask questions later if a crook takes a pot shot at me and somehow misses me.
Neither did Grandma and Grandpa. That's why we're not reading another story about a dead convenience store clerk.

Apparently, their gun wasn't jammed for long.

Most gun jams, especially if it's not a revolver, are readily fixed by just racking the slide.

The robbers did their fair share of shooting.

I started a "Racism" thread.

read above thread to see how some minorities actually feel about racism. you may be surprised.

I would also add "you are entitled to your own opinion, but keep it on that side of the pond, and consider, occasionally, what that opinion is doing to your country."Excuse me. I didn't realise an international political chatboard was the wrong place to discuss political ideas.

I have a good idea. Let's have Utopio come visit me. We'll walk around until someone tries to rob us. I'll pull out my pistol, and bid all a fond adieu.

Then the robber can do whatever he wants to Utopio, who will be unarmed out of principle.

I have a good idea. Let's have Utopio come visit me. We'll walk around until someone tries to rob us. I'll pull out my pistol, and bid all a fond adieu.

Then the robber can do whatever he wants to Utopio, who will be unarmed out of principle.
I still want his address.

Excuse me. I didn't realise an international political chatboard was the wrong place to discuss political ideas.
Ciryar is clearly out of line with that comment about the pond. We are still wondering about how law-abiding citizens in Great Britian are supposed to protect themselves? Their ability to acquire firearms has been severely curtailed and the criminals don't seem to care that their guns are illegal. What happens in Britian if a burglar breaks into my house in broad daylight? What happens if a rapist attacks my wife or daughter? How are we supposed to react?

Save the pope! Call 1-800 SAVEPOPE to donate!

So he missed, and then his gun jammed.so now we have two robbers standing in front of a counter with embarrassed looks on their faces cause they're bad shots and their gun is now about as useful as an ormant. The old people THEN draw their guns, after the shot has been fired and the gun jammed, and carried on firing as the suspects tried to take cover. You're telling me he can draw a gun so fast he didn't see the gun was jammed, and she didnt notice them diving for cover when she pulled out a 9mm?I can't believe some people!

Seriously, with some bloody anti-gunners, it seems it would take 3 severed limbs and an exploded liver before you should fight back!

Maybe the shopkeeper should have gone around the counter and tried to befriend the poor man, find out the real causes behind thier misdemeanor and helped him work through his problems.

The criminal SHOT AT HIM!!! A gun jam does NOT mean the gun falls into little pieces on the floor. Would you rather no-one be allowed to shoot back until they had actually been shot?!

Excuse me. I didn't realise an international political chatboard was the wrong place to discuss political ideas.

And you STILL won't answer any of the questions.

Ciryar is clearly out of line with that comment about the pond. We are still wondering about how law-abiding citizens in Great Britian are supposed to protect themselves? Their ability to acquire firearms has been severely curtailed and the criminals don't seem to care that their guns are illegal. What happens in Britian if a burglar breaks into my house in broad daylight? What happens if a rapist attacks my wife or daughter? How are we supposed to react?

Apparently by doing nothing. The UK gov't has stated that criminals need to be defended against violent home-owners and quite a few police supts. recommend not confronting the criminal at all, just call the police.

Apparently by doing nothing. The UK gov't has stated that criminals need to be defended against violent home-owners and quite a few police supts. recommend not confronting the criminal at all, just call the police.
Maybe the police in the UK are responsible for the safety of each individual citizen. After all, they don't have our Supreme Court.

Utopia does seem to be a tad short in the answer department.

Maybe the police in the UK are responsible for the safety of each individual citizen. After all, they don't have our Supreme Court.

Utopia does seem to be a tad short in the answer department.

Unfortunately, the UK police seem to be about as accountable as our own, except in arresting people who defend their homes.

I still want his address.

Err, so you can go to his house and rob him right?

Utopio- I've been silently watching this thread, and observing the arguements within. And as I read I've noticed you seem to only answer certain questions. Due to the rapid posting of this thread, I can see that perhaps you simply overlooked them. Therefore, now that posting has died down, I'd really appreciate it if you respond to the following questions.

Oh, but not with that wife-beating statement, please. These questions are not intended to be "loaded." If they appear to be, please ask and I will be happy to clarify them.

1.) Given the alarming rise of gun crimes in the United Kingdom immediately following the Civilian disarmemnt act, (Statistics and proof of the accuracy of this statement have already been provided by others) What makes you think identical or similar legislation in the United States would have a more positive effect?

2.) All laws, to be effectively enforced, must be supported by the majority of the population. For example, while some people are theives or murderers and would be against laws prohibiting their actions, most people agree that such laws are nessisary. On the other hand, prohibition in the United States was a colossal failure becasue it did NOT have the support of the general population. Given that obviously most people in the united states do not share your views, could you explain how a gun ban would be effective where similarly unpopular legislation has almost always failed?

3A.) Many high calibur, explosive and automatic weapons are already outlawed. Law abiding citizens cannot get their hands on them, yet they are frequently used by well funded criminals, especially drug traders. Do you believe that a ban on other sorts of firearms would reduce the number of these already illeagal weapons in the hands of criminals?

3B.) Even assuming that the new legislation was one hundred percent effective at eliminating civilian possesion of firearms not already banned, how would citizens and private corperations such as banks protect themselves against criminals using the deadlier weapons that have already been banned since the bank gaurds/homeowners/any other target of a robbery would now be unable to use any sort of firearm in self defense?

I hope you do not overlook these questions as I feel they are important ones that have been raised before but you have never addressed. If you do overlook them, I hope others will post a helpful reminder for Utopio so that he does not miss the oppurtunity to address the major concerns many people have raised with his arguments.

No offense meant if you did indeed simply overlook the questions before, but It did appear to an outsider liek you were avoiding them, and I would liek to believe this is not the case. Please prove my suspicions unfounded by answering these questions.

Now then, what was all that from the gun-banners about using weapons for self-defense being all in your mind? :D

Well they figure if they banned guns the robbers wouldn't have them in the first place so a shootout wouldn't happen period.

Sadly, the fact that anyone could have a gun behind the counter today (perfectly legal to own one this minute!) has not deterred any criminal from committing armed robbery as a clear example has been shown in this very thread.

God knows what could have happened. Luckily the criminal's gun jammed and it ended happily. Any number of people could have died, including innocent bystanders.

EDIT

Wow! I had no idea this thread was so long!

Oh! BTW read my new siggy :D

Err, so you can go to his house and rob him right?
Obviously he won't resist, especially if I have a gun.

Sadly, the fact that anyone could have a gun behind the counter today (perfectly legal to own one this minute!) has not deterred any criminal from committing armed robbery as a clear example has been shown in this very thread.


ummm... I have to say that the chance of having a cap popped in my ass (to use the street lingo) would deter me plenty. not to mention that if a guy comes into a store with a baseball bat and tells the clerk to empty the register, the clerk can pull a gun and tell him "no, I'd rather not. I think you should be going now."

Also I believe the britain gun crime figures show that gun ownership does in fact, deter crime.

Well they figure if they banned guns the robbers wouldn't have them in the first place so a shootout wouldn't happen period.

They are very naive to believe that.


Sadly, the fact that anyone could have a gun behind the counter today (perfectly legal to own one this minute!) has not deterred any criminal from committing armed robbery as a clear example has been shown in this very thread.

Logical fallacy. If this attempted robbery could happen, then no criminal is detered from committing a crime with a gun.
Or, if guns really don't deter criminals, put a sign in your window proclaiming that your home is gun free. Should make a bit of difference, should it?
God knows what could have happened. Luckily the criminal's gun jammed and it ended happily. Any number of people could have died, including innocent bystanders.

Most crime is detered without a shot fired. Simply producing a weapon usually has the desired effect of making the predator run like hell.

*snip*

Amendments are not intended to remove rights.

*snip*



Prohibition :)

The correct way to deal with this is to ban guns and to improve law enforcement until it's imposible to get anything, save maybe that home made musket from the early nineteenth century, which is being kept hidden by some gun nut under his basement in the secret cellar. The day when people value money above justice is the day society has turned immoral.

Prohibition :)

Repealed. :)

The correct way to deal with this is to ban guns and to improve law enforcement until it's imposible to get anything, save maybe that home made musket from the early nineteenth century, which is being kept hidden by some gun nut under his basement in the secret cellar. The day when people value money above justice is the day society has turned immoral.

How do you propose to do that w/o removing many other freedoms (firearms aside)?

The correct way to deal with this is to ban guns and to improve law enforcement until it's imposible to get anything, save maybe that home made musket from the early nineteenth century, which is being kept hidden by some gun nut under his basement in the secret cellar. The day when people value money above justice is the day society has turned immoral. Home made musket? You realise that anyone with a basic workshop can manufacture cheap submachine guns right?

And the fact that there are so many weapons in existance, there's no way in hell you'd do it.

And the fact that banning something doesn't stop criminals using it (Hows that 'War on Drugs' going? Spose no one has weed in the USA now?)

So all you'll accomplish is that law abiding citizens will hand in thier guns, and be easy prey for crims.

RP for a minute. You are standing at the end of the street. On one side; live members of the NRA. On the other side, members of the Million Moron March.

Which would you rather burgle?

The correct way to deal with this is to ban guns and to improve law enforcement until it's imposible to get anything, save maybe that home made musket from the early nineteenth century
Thing is, that point is kinda like the speed of light. It's impossible to reach. You would need a fascist regime with unlimited search and siezure powers, and even then, you wouldn't be able to do this. There would be illeagal gunsmiths making illeagal guns and selling them for a massive profit. Or if the police have them, crooked cops would sell them. One way or another, criminals are going to get guns.

Tanks are here to stay, should we should ensure that law-abiding citezens have the means to defend themselves by supplying them with RPGs, landmines and heavy artillery?

Why not? They're guaranteed by the second amendment. It's not just about firearms.

If guns are made difficult to get, people will use other weapons. You'll see more drive-by battings, for example. And if criminals could not get guns easily, that would hurt the market for guns among law-abiding persons. Besides, most criminals manufacture their own guns and ammo.

RP for a minute. You are standing at the end of the street. On one side; live members of the NRA. On the other side, members of the Million Moron March.

Which would you rather burgle?

I'd know whose homes to get good weapons in. I didn't know morons had a march, but I'd go in while the NRA members were out watching it (it must be one hell of a long street if there are a million people on one side). Either that or I'd ask them how they like living across from morons.

I'd know whose homes to get good weapons in. I didn't know morons had a march, but I'd go in while the NRA members were out watching it (it must be one hell of a long street if there are a million people on one side). Either that or I'd ask them how they like living across from morons. :) Sorry, I was referring to the Million Mom March.

I like thier marketing! Maybe the NRA should be: "Small Cute Children and Animals For Firearms."

No, the two men 'walked into a popular country store outside Atlanta, announced a holdup and fired a shot.' Nothing about shooting anyone.

Why should Bobby and Gloria Doster have to kill two people? As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
Except that there's nothing wrong with shooting armed robbers. They had it coming.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

At no point in my last two posts have I stated these criminals were good people. The tone of Whispering Legs' original post was designed to push a pro-gun agenda. I am anti-gun, therefore I respnd.

I would rather neither the crooks nor the Dosters have the ability to aquire guns, whereby this entire incident would not take place, and no blood would be shed.
Criminals will always have the ability to aquire guns.

Prohibition :)

and that was repealed! LOL

RP for a minute. You are standing at the end of the street. On one side; live members of the NRA. On the other side, members of the Million Moron March.

Which would you rather burgle?

The Moron March! They'll be unarmed because the NRA guys will be armed.

The Moron March! They'll be unarmed because the NRA guys will be armed.

Yeah, but would morons have anything worth burgling?

Logical fallacy. If this attempted robbery could happen, then no criminal is detered from committing a crime with a gun.
Or, if guns really don't deter criminals, put a sign in your window proclaiming that your home is gun free. Should make a bit of difference, should it?


You're being a bit silly here and are the one committing the logical fallacy. "False Analogy" and "Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)" spring to mind. You are assuming that since the shopkeepers were able to stop the criminals then if everyone owns a gun the streets would be safer. In reality, criminals either plan for retaliation or the thought doesn't enter their heads in the first place. Luck had everything to do with these folks surviving the robbery. The criminals however, were unlucky, and dumb.

ALSO: No one advertises their weaknesses so someone can victimize them (no one smart anyway) so stop it with that ludicrous 'no guns' sign idea. Bad analogy. A criminal does not know whether the shopkeepers are armed or not so it isn't a logical fallacy because a criminal's lack of knowledge, or lack of concern, isn't a deterrent.

In short: A person who has not committed a crime is not a criminal. All crimes are committed by criminals. Gun ownership is legal in the US where they are bought for protection from criminals. The american criminal should know that their potential victims may be armed but THEY COMMIT THE CRIME ANYWAY. These crimes are what is recorded in statistics, not crimes that aren't committed. No crimes where guns can be used for defense are stopped. Crimes where guns are used as a defense successfully are listed under 'attempted' crimes. All crimes occur regardless on the availablilty of guns. Guns do not deter criminals.

If your scenario is true than no crimes are committed in the US since the idea of someone having a gun would keep them from committing the crime. Obvious bull.

Until you give solid numbers on the number of robberies actually deterred by the criminal considering the vague possibility of a clerk/cashier/whatever being armed you have a weak case to charge me with a logical fallacy. However, it would be rare for a 'criminal' smart enough to NOT commit a crime to admit "I was gonna rob the store but then I thought the clerk might be armed!" to anyone. In which case the 'criminal' would NOT BE a criminal since they didn't commit a crime. This would not be recorded in crime statistics.

I've watched a lot of dumb criminal shows to know that they don't think about the consequences before committing crimes.

The stupid and violent ones do robberies. Success depends on luck and experience. Can we agree that these two groups (the dumb and violent) aren't likely to be deterred by the possible dangers to themseves, whether by ignorance or the fact that they have little fear? The adrenaline rush prior to committing the crime tends to block out reason as well. God help us if either type makes a plan or method picked up from their stint in prison.

'Deterred' crimes are not recorded in statistics because there is no victim. Every crime being committed is being committed with the easily acknowledged foreknowledge that the victim may be packing. The thing is: The criminals SIMPLY DO NOT TAKE THIS TO HEART AND THEY COMMIT THE CRIMES ANYWAY.

The most you can get is an 'attempted robbery' or any assortment of 'attempted' crimes. A gun is not a deterrent. If you can get a crook to believe the risk so they do not commit the crime then THAT is a deterrant.

If you have to produce the gun while being victimized in order for it to work then you are not deterring anything. A crime is in progress.

I'm pretty sure just as many lawful citizens have died as criminals once guns are produced during crimes. I'm pretty sure more than a few people had been taken by surprise and were not able to use their guns. Too bad statistics aren't good in this area.

The human psyche is fun. If you tell someone in a game of rock-paper-scissors that you are going to choose scissors before you actually play the game it adds a whole new degree of fun to it :D

The deterrent, like this game of paper-rock-scissors is all based on a bluff.

ON THE TOPIC OF DETERRENCE

Using "Beware of Dog" signs or security system stickers on your home acts as a deterrant to burglars even if you do not own a dog or security system. Even if the crooks have not seen a dog outside the house it is easier to just move on to another no-sign house than trying to figure out if a dog exists or not.

A good way to deter criminals, using your sign example and the scenario presented in the first post, would be to put a "Shop Owner is Armed" sign in the window. It would work whether or not the shopkeeper is actually armed.

This is what makes a deterrent effective. The opposition must BELIEVE there is a countermeasure in place that makes their actions futile. You have to be obvious about it for it to work. The gun should be visable not 'concealed'. However, some criminals are so thick that not even this would deter some of them. Still the majority would be given pause.

Pychological deterrents are used all the time on the political level. I point out Russia saying it developed a system that counters the US Missle Shield. Who knows if it is true but it makes you think doesn't it?

In the case posted in this article, the robbers didn't and if not for a jammed gun some good people may have died.

A DETERRANT requires acknowledgement of the believeable possibility of an effective countermeasure. Therefore a gun itself is not a deterrant. Knowledge of the gun before a crime is committed would classify it as a deterrent.

If you want to display the possibilty of you being armed. Read what I post below.


Most crime is detered without a shot fired. Simply producing a weapon usually has the desired effect of making the predator run like hell.

Therefore the invention of the 'attempted' category of crimes, still a crime, did not deter the crime and the life of the individual was still at risk.

If they believe you are packing BEFORE they decide to mug you they would think twice and a possible shooting need not occur.

This reminds me of a handbag the Guardian Angels made.

*looks for link*

http://boingboing.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=gun+handbag

Oh BTW...read my sig. Is the joke funny? :p

and that was repealed! LOL

Only because it didn't work :)

The amendments can indeed be used to restrict your rights. That's all I wanted to point out.

Actually it is. If you read above, several of us posted links to studies proving that your skyrocketing crime rate is linked to the fact that you all banned guns.

Although it is one reason, it is also due to the fact that our laws on self defence are misleading to say the least. We can't even confront people in our own houses without being arrested for it.

There are also numerous other reasons, but despite what is written, gun ownership in the UK was low before the more stringent laws came into effect, so to say that its the only reason for our soaring crime rate is just simply wrong.

...Sadly, the fact that anyone could have a gun behind the counter today (perfectly legal to own one this minute!) has not deterred any criminal from committing armed robbery as a clear example has been shown in this very thread.


Your reply was way too long for me to wade through, so I'll start over again, because it's clear my post wasn't very good.

First, you made the statement that gun ownership has not "...deterred any criminal...". That's the logic I disagree with. There is no proof that that is true. The argument you make is 'When citizens own guns, they will deter armed robbery. If an armed robbery occurs, guns must not deter any armed robbery'. Isn't that what the quote above implies? Well it's wrong and since I restated it, I suspect you can see it's wrong.

Second, an armed populace didn't deter these guys, that's very true. They are probably dragging the state IQ down more than their share. In other words, criminals aren't from the more educated, or even more intelligent segment of the population. If they were, they would have bought better ammunition and cleaned the pistol once in a while. Then it wouldn't have jammed.

Although it is one reason, it is also due to the fact that our laws on self defence are misleading to say the least. We can't even confront people in our own houses without being arrested for it.

There are also numerous other reasons, but despite what is written, gun ownership in the UK was low before the more stringent laws came into effect, so to say that its the only reason for our soaring crime rate is just simply wrong.

It can't help matters that criminals in the UK now know for sure that:

1. The homeowner is definitely unarmed. The law now makes that a surety.
2. The laws now make it illegal for a homeowner to resist in any manner.

I could make a career out of home invasion in the UK.

You're being a bit silly here and are the one committing the logical fallacy. "False Analogy" and "Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)" spring to mind. You are assuming that since the shopkeepers were able to stop the criminals then if everyone owns a gun the streets would be safer. In reality, criminals either plan for retaliation or the thought doesn't enter their heads in the first place. Luck had everything to do with these folks surviving the robbery. The criminals however, were unlucky, and dumb.

ALSO: No one advertises their weaknesses so someone can victimize them (no one smart anyway) so stop it with that ludicrous 'no guns' sign idea. Bad analogy. A criminal does not know whether the shopkeepers are armed or not so it isn't a logical fallacy because a criminal's lack of knowledge, or lack of concern, isn't a deterrent.
<snip>

It is very much on the minds of the criminals in Northern Virginia and the Maryland counties that border Washington DC. In police interviews, the criminals know that a large number of people carry concealed in Virginia - this makes it a roll of the dice as to whether or not robbing a store or some isolated person will suddenly become "work". It is also the explanation given for the sudden shift in violent crime in the area - violent crime dropped 33 percent in Northern Virginia in a single year - right after the introduction of liberalized concealed carry. At the same time, crime rose by nearly the same amount in Montgomery County, a similarly affluent area that has just made more restrictions on gun ownership, to include severely limiting the type of guns that may be owned (far stricter than Federal regulation). Each year, the crime drops lower in Northern Virginia, and within a few percentage points, is increasing by the same amount in Montgomery County.

Of course, the really intelligent criminal does his work in DC, where you can't own anything more lethal than a spitball and a wet paper towel. That's where the majority of murders and violent crime take place in our area - despite the fact that less than a quarter of a million people live in DC, and each of the counties have over five million residents.

Having dealt with criminals on probation, they do want to have an easy a robbery as possible. Otherwise, they would find real work. They don't want risks and they will make decisions that make their job easier. The equation in Virginia, despite your conclusion that somehow this is a logical fallacy, is that criminals are, by the statistics and by their own admissions in police surveys, making the decision to stay away from counties that have invisibly armed citizens, and keeping their violent activities confined to counties that have announced by law that their citizens are most definitely unarmed.

You can't argue with the numbers. Oh, and it's interesting to note that despite the fact that thousands of people carry concealed in Northern Virginia, the murder rate is lower in Northern Virginia than the economically comparable area in Maryland just across the river. Is an armed society a polite society? It sure looks like it.

It can't help matters that criminals in the UK now know for sure that:

1. The homeowner is definitely unarmed. The law now makes that a surety.
2. The laws now make it illegal for a homeowner to resist in any manner.

I could make a career out of home invasion in the UK.

Well, not exaclty, we can defend ourselves, as long as we use 'reasonable force' (thats how the law states it....talk about ambiguous). Now to me this means something less than or equal to the threat posed by the person coming at you.

Say if you broke into my house and i confronted you, you held a knife in your hand, i feel i would have every right to pick up something akin to a knife or something sharp (like the sword i own :D) and be legally allowed to use it. I mean as long as i don't kill you thats fine.

And just as a small pointer, you are allowed to keep shotguns (single fire, double barreled sort) at home in the UK. Thats not illegal. As long as your a farmer. As long as i don't kill you it's fine...blow one of your legs off instead or something....

No I haven't.

You fit the definition of a

GUN BIGOT
A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge
of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

You're shocking. You cannot compare the issue of gun control to the racial segregation prevalent in the 50s. Noone in the world *needs* a gun. You're just pathologically scared of anyone hurting you.

Gun nuts are actually wusses, see. You don't own a gun for any reason except that you're scared of the other people with guns. And they own guns cos they're scared of your gun. Great, eh?

WHy don't you ask Robert Symons about insurance. His family collected his life insurance after a "robbery gone wrong"(detectives words). His crime, he went downstairs to see what a noise was.

Or howabout Annie Hendrick and Sally Skidmore. Two ladies in their eighties that are now using the health care system after being severely beaten in their homes.

Or the Orr's, a couple in their 80's severely beaten (including PISTOL whipped) in thier home.

Where did these occur? That's right, the UK

Well, not exaclty, we can defend ourselves, as long as we use 'reasonable force' (thats how the law states it....talk about ambiguous). Now to me this means something less than or equal to the threat posed by the person coming at you.

Say if you broke into my house and i confronted you, you held a knife in your hand, i feel i would have every right to pick up something akin to a knife or something sharp (like the sword i own :D) and be legally allowed to use it. I mean as long as i don't kill you thats fine.

And just as a small pointer, you are allowed to keep shotguns (single fire, double barreled sort) at home in the UK. Thats not illegal. As long as your a farmer. As long as i don't kill you it's fine...blow one of your legs off instead or something....

So the Gov't can pay for the criminal to sue you the rest of your life and be harrassed by his/her family while you sit in jail (ie Tony Martin)?

Gun nuts are actually wusses, see. You don't own a gun for any reason except that you're scared of the other people with guns. And they own guns cos they're scared of your gun. Great, eh?

I am not a gun "nut", but I carry one ALL THE TIME. It's because I've been hospitalized before by two attacks by someone without a gun. It's because I've been trapped in a burning house (the fire was set by an attacker who had no gun). I've been stalked and threatened with bodily harm by someone who can't and does not own a gun.

Want to know when my nightmare stopped? When he found out that I carry a 45 all the time.

You're shocking. You cannot compare the issue of gun control to the racial segregation prevalent in the 50s. Noone in the world *needs* a gun. You're just pathologically scared of anyone hurting you.

Gun nuts are actually wusses, see. You don't own a gun for any reason except that you're scared of the other people with guns. And they own guns cos they're scared of your gun. Great, eh?

If wanting to protect my family and myself from harm makes me a "gun nut" or "pathologically scared" , then so be it. BTW do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Yes? You must be "pathologically scared" of any fire.

Criminals own guns because their scared of homeowners w/ guns? Or maybe because it gives them the edge when it comes to causing harm.

Are you opposed to people defending their homes or themselves from violent criminals?

So the Gov't can pay for the criminal to sue you the rest of your life and be harrassed by his/her family while you sit in jail (ie Tony Martin)?

Yup, but you can do that in the states too. In fact i believe the litigation you can go through there is even worse than it is here so. But i know what you mean. I would like to see laws passed similar to those in the states.

Like the example at the start of this thread i think the two shop owners were right to defend themselves, especially being fired upon.

Yup, but you can do that in the states too. In fact i believe the litigation you can go through there is even worse than it is here so. But i know what you mean. I would like to see laws passed similar to those in the states.

Like the example at the start of this thread i think the two shop owners were right to defend themselves, especially being fired upon.

America is a mixed bag. Some states allow for those kind of lawsuits(most likely encourage them) while others have passed laws protecting the victims from these junk lawsuits.

Gun laws are the same. They range from any law-abiding citizen (no felonies, violent misdemeanors or mental problems) can own and carry a gun freely to laws just as Draconian as the UK. It even varies within the states. In Chicago, Illinois all hand guns are illegal while in rural Illinois, most laws are more relaxed.

America is a mixed bag. Some states allow for those kind of lawsuits(most likely encourage them) while others have passed laws protecting the victims from these junk lawsuits.

Gun laws are the same. They range from any law-abiding citizen (no felonies, violent misdemeanors or mental problems) can own and carry a gun freely to laws just as Draconian as the UK. It even varies within the states. In Chicago, Illinois all hand guns are illegal while in rural Illinois, most laws are more relaxed.

Yeah, i know they vary a lot. Just like most other laws in the states too i suppose.

To be honest, althought some in the US would find my opinions a little to stringent, I would like to see relaxed laws here. I posted something on it earlier.

As for self defence i believe it is every persons right to defend themselves, to the hilt, as they say. Pity the politicians don't agree.

You're shocking. You cannot compare the issue of gun control to the racial segregation prevalent in the 50s. Noone in the world *needs* a gun.

Why not? Are you opposed to Freedom of Speech as well?

There are striking similarities between the two. Guns aren't actually "banned" anywhere. The trick is to require permits and then stop issuing them, require huge "fees" to get a "license", take rigged tests, prove they have a "need" for a gun, or just never file the paperwork.

Just like it wasn't technically illegal for blacks to vote. They just had to pass rigged tests, pay enormous "fees", prove they had a relative that could vote, or go through more beaurocratic paperwork that it wasn't "worth it", or just delay or lose the registering papers. Did they require a "need" to vote?

Yeah, i know they vary a lot. Just like most other laws in the states too i suppose.

To be honest, althought some in the US would find my opinions a little to stringent, I would like to see relaxed laws here. I posted something on it earlier.

As for self defence i believe it is every persons right to defend themselves, to the hilt, as they say. Pity the politicians don't agree.

I just read an article on this. Some of the things these politicians are saying are insane.

MP Pound: "The people have spoken--the bastards"
MP Gale: (the right to self defense)"endorses the slaughter of 16 yr old kids"
"a license for madmen"
"a license to kill w/ impunity"
Prosecution against Martin" Burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders"

I just read an article on this. Some of the things these politicians are saying are insane.

MP Pound: "The people have spoken--the bastards"
MP Gale: (the right to self defense)"endorses the slaughter of 16 yr old kids"
"a license for madmen"
"a license to kill w/ impunity"
Prosecution against Martin" Burglars are members of the public who must be protected from violent householders"
They don't sound much different than Schumer and Feinstein. Thank the old white guys that we have a written Constitution.

ooh ooh i know, lets ban handguns ENTIRELY and require every person to have an ak and carry it on their person. woo hoo

They don't sound much different than Schumer and Feinstein. Thank the old white guys that we have a written Constitution.
Ahh, yes. The "turn them all in " twins. When are they up for re-election? They need to be "Daschled".

ooh ooh i know, lets ban handguns ENTIRELY and require every person to have an ak and carry it on their person. woo hoo
Reaper won't see this because I offend him, but his post reminded me of something interesting.

Kennesaw, Georgia has a great law. It's mandatory for all home owners to own a firearm. Most people there comply to excess. I've lived in Georgia for 15 years and I can't remember a single story about a burglar having been shot in Kennesaw. The pickings are much easier elsewhere.

Reaper won't see this because I offend him, but his post reminded me of something interesting.

Kennesaw, Georgia has a great law. It's mandatory for all home owners to own a firearm. Most people there comply to excess. I've lived in Georgia for 15 years and I can't remember a single story about a burglar having been shot in Kennesaw. The pickings are much easier elsewhere.

That can't be possible because we all "know" guns cause crime.

You're shocking. You cannot compare the issue of gun control to the racial segregation prevalent in the 50s. Noone in the world *needs* a gun. You're just pathologically scared of anyone hurting you.

Gun nuts are actually wusses, see. You don't own a gun for any reason except that you're scared of the other people with guns. And they own guns cos they're scared of your gun. Great, eh?
Fine, we'll go back to the time period where women are regarded as nothing more than objects and the ones in power are the ones with the most swords, a weapon that takes training and quite a bit of mass for most to use properly.

Fine, we'll go back to the time period where women are regarded as nothing more than objects and the ones in power are the ones with the most swords, a weapon that takes training and quite a bit of mass for most to use properly.
Fine by me. I'm a big fella and I have trained with swords.