NationStates Jolt Archive

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?

At home/family: My dad has a 12 gauge shotgun, I have a .22 semi automatic rifle. My dad is the first line of defense against a robber, and if anything should happen to him, I am to try to find a way out for me and my mom. Even if that means I have to shoot the guy myself. We also have an alarm system that even I can hear when I sleep (I have a hearing aid and turn it off at night). We also have a dog that barks at everything that comes up the driveway.

Myself: Right now I am using a pepper spray to protect myself, but I am also considering either a handgun or martial arts. I'll probably go with handguns since my left foot is paraylized and I doubt I can be very fast and agile on my feet. So that side of protection for myself is still being developed.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?

I apparantly protect my family by leaving the door unlocked 3 nights a week.


I suppose it is better than leaving it open.

I protect myself, my belongings and my family by paying taxes, which in turn are used by the state to fund police forces. :rolleyes: Also I my home is made of concrete and bricks, and I have a steel door with a serious lock.

Also I know when to use diplomacy, threats, or call the police.

What should I have a gun in my home for? Just so my kids can express their idiocy by toting a loaded firearm around when I'm not home and shoot their pals?

Oh, and btw why did your friend step out of his car? It is easier to threaten a person when you're driving a device with the mass of 1 ton and capable of accelerating to 100 km/h in 6 seconds, than stepping out with a gun. What if the other guy'd had a gun, too? Let's have an OK-Corral-style shootout? Are you sure he'd be still alive?

how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?

Saran wrap. :)

My wife is a police officer. She owns a gun, and so do I. Obviously, we have a pretty good rapport with local law enforcement. :p

I also own a collapsible steel baton, a stun gun and a wooden practice sword that hits remarkably hard. In addition, I am a human wrecking ball. :)

I live under LG's bed, and carry a very large stuffed duck. I'm incredibly safe.

Protect me against what?
I normally use condoms...

Back home in the states, I used to have a bokken by my bed that I could crack the heads of people open with should I have ever needed it. I also had a very strong steel door and dead bolts.

In Japan... uh... Well, the only bad thing that has happened in my small town is bears and I carry bear bells and a whack-a-bear stick for that.

I'm governed by the UCMJ and Hawaii Revised Statute §703-304 (Use of Force in Self-Protection) and -306 (Use of Force for the Protection of Property). No guns allowed. Under HRS 703-306, Paragraph 4:

The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(a) The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury; and
(b) The use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the defendant believes them to be; and
(c) The device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.

I protect myself, my belongings and my family by paying taxes, which in turn are used by the state to fund police forces. :rolleyes: Also I my home is made of concrete and bricks, and I have a steel door with a serious lock.

Yea, the police will be right there. If you consider 45 minutes right there. :rolleyes: . Sometimes you can't wait for the police.

Also I know when to use diplomacy, threats, or call the police.

When the guy has a gun, diplomacy won't work because he has firepower. Threats won't work if you can't back them up, because he'll call your buff, and like I said, if you think the police will protect you, then you better stall the guy for 45 minutes.

What should I have a gun in my home for? Just so my kids can express their idiocy by toting a loaded firearm around when I'm not home and shoot their pals?

To protect your family, and to shoot the intruder, trust me, the majority of intruders will run when they see that the home owner has a gun. It worked once here, a guy tried breaking into our home one time, and he almost got in, then he found out that he was at the end of the 12 gauge, he ran like hell. Guns tend to have a humbling effect on most people. For the minority that it doesn't work for, shoot the bastard. It's your home, he's there uninvited, as far as the law sees it, he's in the fault, not you.

Oh, and btw why did your friend step out of his car? It is easier to threaten a person when you're driving a device with the mass of 1 ton and capable of accelerating to 100 km/h in 6 seconds, than stepping out with a gun. What if the other guy'd had a gun, too? Let's have an OK-Corral-style shootout? Are you sure he'd be still alive?

Most people who try to act tough, are bullies, and bullies are cowards if you stand up to them, that why my friend did it. The tough guy was a bully who was all talk, but no show.

An array of firearms, my favorite of which is a Model 100 Winchester .308. Protection? A NEA 12ga pump. Nice gun.

praying to jesus.

What should I have a gun in my home for? Just so my kids can express their idiocy by toting a loaded firearm around when I'm not home and shoot their pals?


That's why you keep your firearms locked away from the prying hands of children and you teach them from a young age to respect firearms as a powerful tool (that commands respect), not as a toy to be fooled around with.

Oh, and over two million violent crimes are stopped every year by the brandishing of a firearm. Can you tell me that's not detterance? I'd rather protect myself than rely on the delayed, useless response from the police who almost always arrive too late.

I think it's a certain type of person who's mind revolves around violent crime happening to them when they are not in an immediately threatening situation or even in a threatening neighborhood. Everybody wants to be a cowboy at some point in their life. I've moved on to wanting to be an astronaut.

By the way, I've had a guy follow me for a couple of miles. Really freaked me out. Kept flashing his lights. Finally got to where I was going and he approached me. Really big guy. Had fangs. Wanted to let me know that I had been dragging a sweater that was stuck in the passenger door.

What do I need to protect myself from? Home invasions aren't exactly commonplace over here, so i'm not paranoid.

I think it's a certain type of person who's mind revolves around violent crime happening to them when they are not in an immediately threatening situation or even in a threatening neighborhood. Everybody wants to be a cowboy at some point in their life. I've moved on to wanting to be an astronaut.

By the way, I've had a guy follow me for a couple of miles. Really freaked me out. Kept flashing his lights. Finally got to where I was going and he approached me. Really big guy. Had fangs. Wanted to let me know that I had been dragging a sweater that was stuck in the passenger door.

Trust me, this guy was making threatening gester such as shaking hand out the window, yelling, throwing stuff and showing off the middle finger. "Tough guy" wanted a fight, well my friend gave it to him.

What do I need to protect myself from? Home invasions aren't exactly commonplace over here, so i'm not paranoid.

I was wondering the same thing...

Yea, the police will be right there. If you consider 45 minutes right there. :rolleyes: . Sometimes you can't wait for the police.

When the guy has a gun, diplomacy won't work because he has firepower. Threats won't work if you can't back them up, because he'll call your buff, and like I said, if you think the police will protect you, then you better stall the guy for 45 minutes.

To protect your family, and to shoot the intruder, trust me, the majority of intruders will run when they see that the home owner has a gun. It worked once here, a guy tried breaking into our home one time, and he almost got in, then he found out that he was at the end of the 12 gauge, he ran like hell. Guns tend to have a humbling effect on most people. For the minority that it doesn't work for, shoot the bastard. It's your home, he's there uninvited, as far as the law sees it, he's in the fault, not you.

Most people who try to act tough, are bullies, and bullies are cowards if you stand up to them, that why my friend did it. The tough guy was a bully who was all talk, but no show.

1.45 minutes for police? Where do you live, on the Himalaya? Here in Milan police will arrive in less than 5 minutes.
2.If the guy has a gun and you don't, this is exactly the very moment for diplomacy. Why risk your life in an all-out defence if you can make him lose time? Wait for the right moment, and also buy an insurance against robbery if that is your main fear. Also a threat will always work - just use a good threat, like "the police is already coming" and then say "I'm not preventing you to escape".
3.You're assuming an unarmed intruder, right? If he is armed, and you're still fumbling for your gun, he's gonna shoot you before you can touch the trigger.
Also most intruders are smart enough to try homebreaking when no one is at home.
Moreover, humiliated people tend to want revenge on those who umiliated them, unless the intruder is a pro - in that case, he simply understand he has to wait till you get out of home to steal.
Also - at least here in Italy and most of EU - firing a gun at an unarmed person is called "excess of defence", and that is a felony. If you wound him, you'll risk jail if you didn't warn him that you were armed and if shooting was unnecessary. If you kill him, you will be tried, and most likely sentenced, for manslaughter, even if he was trespassing and entering your home uninvited. Even a thief has got the right to life.
4.I also confronted bullies, and sometimes had to fight my way out of it. Still I think that putting out a gun, or any other kind of weapon, would only worsen the situation.

I live alone in an apartment (I'm in college) and keep a pistol on my nightstand.

It is a .45 cal 1911, and I would shoot who broke in. Arizona is a shoot-first state since legislation to that effect passed this summer.

When i go on walks late at night, as is my wont, i carry it in a holster under my shirt.

When driving into unsavory neighborhoods, i keep the gun on the seat next to me, otherwise i keep it in the glove box in a holster.

I was wondering the same thing...

Ehh. If I lived in a society where I felt it was absolutely necessary to have a weapon on me at all times, I'm pretty sure i'd be trying to move very far away from it.

Saran wrap. :)

My wife is a police officer. She owns a gun, and so do I. Obviously, we have a pretty good rapport with local law enforcement. :p

I also own a collapsible steel baton, a stun gun and a wooden practice sword that hits remarkably hard. In addition, I am a human wrecking ball. :)

A POLICE OFFICER?

Do you two have any kids for christ's sake?

"cops' kids are always the worst"
LG's kids... christ....

That's why you keep your firearms locked away from the prying hands of children.
Which also makes your gun really easy for you to get to when an armed robber already holding his gun walks into your bedroom.


Oh, and over two million violent crimes are stopped every year by the brandishing of a firearm. Can you tell me that's not detterance?
Any figures for the amount of violent crimes assisted via the use of a gun?

When the guy has a gun, diplomacy won't work because he has firepower. Threats won't work if you can't back them up, because he'll call your buff, and like I said, if you think the police will protect you, then you better stall the guy for 45 minutes.

If a guy has a gun and intends you harm he will already have his gun in his hand, while (assuming you are carrying) you have yours in it's holster. Not a very fair game of quick draw. Are you going to say "Wait one second good sir while I get my gun out so that we may partake of this exchange as gentlemen"?

Personally I think the self-defense arguement is bunk, all it does is encourage a criminal to carry a gun and be more prepared to use it. A criminal will be much more prepared to shoot you with little provacation if he thinks you're about to shoot him first.

Also - the "ZOMG How can a little old lade defend herself against an athletic criminal? How can a little guy defend themselves against a big guy!!!one!11"
While a gun DOES allow someone who would normally be fairly defenseless to defend themselves it also allows a much larger number of people to carry out violent crime. Say I'm out and about and some scrawney little guy decides to mug me - I beat him round the chops and he goes away. Say he decides to mug me with the use of a gun - what can I do - here's a guy who normally nobody would be afraid of, who normally could never contemplate hurting me in a fight, I have gun holstered but he has a gun already pointed at me. Guns not much use to me is it?

I am not anti-gun. But I think fear is a bad reason for people to own them.

The only thing that I ever owned that I bought specifically for personal protection was my collapsible steel baton. I still own that.

I got my pistol permit and own a gun as a statement of my support for the Second Amendment.

I own a stun gun and a wooden practice sword for use on my friends. :D

As for my wife, I fell in love with her because she's smart, appreciates my sense of humor and is sexually ravenous. Being a cop was a happy bonus. :D

A POLICE OFFICER?

Do you two have any kids for christ's sake?

"cops' kids are always the worst"
LG's kids... christ....

We have a 2 1/2 year old son and we're expecting twins at the end of the month! :D :eek: :D

That's why you keep your firearms locked away from the prying hands of children and you teach them from a young age to respect firearms as a powerful tool (that commands respect), not as a toy to be fooled around with.

Oh, and over two million violent crimes are stopped every year by the brandishing of a firearm. Can you tell me that's not detterance? I'd rather protect myself than rely on the delayed, useless response from the police who almost always arrive too late.

A weapon is not a tool that commands respect. It is a tool that:
1.Inspires fear and irrational actions in those who see the gun from the wrong end.
2.Inspires hybris and irrational actions in those who hold the gun from the right end.
3.Kills people, even by accident.
So you'll have to be EXTRA careful. Expecially with kids around, who will be fascinated by those "now I'm invincible" sensation firearms give.
There are other, better ways to earn respect.

Yea, that's not deterrence. That's threatening - and threatening leads to higher levels of violence. If a criminal is scared by the mere presence of a gun, he's not a profesisonal. And non-professionals (like street thugs, gang members etc) might think that they need revenge to retain the respect of their fellows.

And if your local police is so slow, I advise you to intervene in your local politics and request better, more present, more quick-responding police forces.

Firearms are not legal in the UK so neither side has a gun. All I have to protect myself are my locks and the vigulence of my neighbours. And the fact that I live in a house with three other people and none of us have anything worth stealing. But I can't agree with guns in the home, its a home not a barracks

Ehh. If I lived in a society where I felt it was absolutely necessary to have a weapon on me at all times, I'm pretty sure i'd be trying to move very far away from it.

That would be my reaction as well... I guess the best protection you can have is living far away from places where that kind of situation is commonplace enough to warrant a whole thread.

I got my pistol permit and own a gun as a statement of my support for the Second Amendment.


I thought the Second Amendment was introduced to allow the creation of the militia in case the King's soldiers marched up the Potomac (which they did in 1812). All this "right to carry a gun wherever and whenever I like" things that the NRA claims as the correct interpretation of it is just that - one of the possible interpretations.
Then again, I'm no US citizen to teach you the meaning of your Constitution. I just tell you that if you have to keep a firearm ready to feel safe, there is something wrong in your society - too much fear, too much crime, too few police. Maybe even too much poverty - poverty often leads to crime.

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?

At home/family: My dad has a 12 gauge shotgun, I have a .22 semi automatic rifle. My dad is the first line of defense against a robber, and if anything should happen to him, I am to try to find a way out for me and my mom. Even if that means I have to shoot the guy myself. We also have an alarm system that even I can hear when I sleep (I have a hearing aid and turn it off at night). We also have a dog that barks at everything that comes up the driveway.

Myself: Right now I am using a pepper spray to protect myself, but I am also considering either a handgun or martial arts. I'll probably go with handguns since my left foot is paraylized and I doubt I can be very fast and agile on my feet. So that side of protection for myself is still being developed.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?

we pretty much don't, but when i'm by myself i take a hammer (http://www.toolspot.co.uk/products/Hammers/16Oz%20Claw%20Hammer%20Fibre%20Handle.jpg)or a big kitchen knife (40cm blade sorta thing) to bed with me just in case.

I protect myself by trying to remember to lock my door. :)

Also, I tend to stay out of trouble.

I thought the Second Amendment was introduced to allow the creation of the militia in case the King's soldiers marched up the Potomac (which they did in 1812). All this "right to carry a gun wherever and whenever I like" things that the NRA claims as the correct interpretation of it is just that - one of the possible interpretations.
Then again, I'm no US citizen to teach you the meaning of your Constitution. I just tell you that if you have to keep a firearm ready to feel safe, there is something wrong in your society - too much fear, too much crime, too few police. Maybe even too much poverty - poverty often leads to crime.

The real meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most debated subjects in recent history. However, I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the citizenry to own firearms as a check against the militia. I don't believe the framers were so much concerned about foreign enemies, as they were against domestic ones.

Arizona is a shoot-first state since legislation to that effect passed this summer.


Could you explain me the meaning of "shoot-first"? You get licence to shoot when you're threatened by an armed guy, or what? And if the guy is not armed? Or armed with a knife, or a club?

Luckily here in the UK we don't have clearly paranoid people wandering around with guns 'for their own protection' who shoot the first person they feel even slightly threatened by, so it is fairly safe.

Statistically, the odds of a person NEEDING a gun are slim. I live in a "bad" area in a medium-sized city, and though there have been a few uneasy times, I've never needed a gun. The times I've been a crime victim, a gun would have been irrelevant (burglary while not home), or even a liability (armed robbery with robber's gun already pointed).

My brain is my first line of defense. When a tough looking punk followed me, I drove away quickly. At the time I didn't have a cellphone, but I knew where the nearest police station was, and if he had continued the chase, that's where I was heading. I try to keep alert to my surroundings, especially when I'm in "bad" places (ATM machine, convienence store).

Having said that, I support the right to have and use guns as a last resort. A gun is no substitute for using your head, but there ARE times when a gun, in the hands of a COMPETANT person can save lives. And you CAN'T depend on the police.

The real meaning of the Second Amendment is one of the most debated subjects in recent history. However, I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the citizenry to own firearms as a check against the militia. I don't believe the framers were so much concerned about foreign enemies, as they were against domestic ones.

AGAINST the militia? Even George Washington's militia? This surprises me. Then again - and that is a fault of our education system - in Italy we do not study much of extra-european history of that era, we focus a lot on pre-revolutionary France.

The real meaning of the Second Amendment is own of the most debated subjects in recent history. However, I believe that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of the citizenry to one firearms as a check against the militia. I don't believe the framers were so much concerned about foreign enemies, as they were against domestic ones.

I tend to believe that the thinking behind the 2nd shows up better in their writings. Jefferson especially wrote frequently on the merits of a private citizen owning and bearing arms. He was a firm believer in a citizens ownership and usage of arms.

And I believe the same theme shows up in the papers of other Founders.

A weapon is not a tool that commands respect. It is a tool that:
1.Inspires fear and irrational actions in those who see the gun from the wrong end.

It commands respect because everyone realizes it can kill you. One tends to respect something that instills fear. I'm quite glad it inspires fear in people, otherwise it's useless. Would you attack someone with a baseball bat made like a swimming fun noodle? No, because it doesn't do anything to them but make them angry. It's useless. A weapon is only good if it can inflict significant damage, pain, or death on an assailant. Frankly, if someone comes after me, I'd like to kill them, not just hurt them. But I guess that makes me a sadistic, evil person, no?


2.Inspires hybris and irrational actions in those who hold the gun from the right end.


3.Kills people, even by accident.

See number one. Yes, accidents do happen. But there are FAR more non-gun related accidents than there are gun-related accidents. You be the judge on what's more dangerous--a car or a gun? You're nine times as likely to be accidentally killed by your doctor than you are a firearm. Scary.


So you'll have to be EXTRA careful. Expecially with kids around, who will be fascinated by those "now I'm invincible" sensation firearms give.
There are other, better ways to earn respect.

Yes, you do have to extra careful...careful to instruct your children--who you have to understand aren't stupid (never undestimate a child)--that a gun doesn't make someone invincible. It is not a toy. When they learn to understand that, they are bettered by it. Guns aren't evil nor do they cause evil. Only those who wield them can do that. And if they didn't have guns to use, they'd find far more ghastly methods.


Yea, that's not deterrence. That's threatening

Deterrance through an overt threat. Intimidation is the biggest part of deterrance. If you pull a gun on someone intending to do you harm, the stats are with you that they will back down.

- and threatening leads to higher levels of violence. If a criminal is scared by the mere presence of a gun, he's not a profesisonal. And non-professionals (like street thugs, gang members etc) might think that they need revenge to retain the respect of their fellows.

Now you're resorting to "what-if" drama ideas. Your average thug trying to break into your house with a crow-bar or mug you with a knife is going to piss himself if he sees that you're armed.


And if your local police is so slow, I advise you to intervene in your local politics and request better, more present, more quick-responding police forces.

Police officers themselves even admit that their existance is more for post-crime than it is for preventing the crime as it's happening.

we pretty much don't, but when i'm by myself i take a hammer (http://www.toolspot.co.uk/products/Hammers/16Oz%20Claw%20Hammer%20Fibre%20Handle.jpg)or a big kitchen knife (40cm blade sorta thing) to bed with me just in case.
That's not a hammer. THIS (http://www.hamptools.com/images/products/HA62_LRG.jpg) is a hammer.

Seriously, I actually do have one of these.

Imagine a 6'6"/195cm 220pound/100kg/16stone pissed off naked guy coming at you with a 4lb lump hammer and you have the (probably last) image any shit who tries breaking into my house late at night will have. I hate being woken up late at night.

I also have a machete, in case a would be house invader disturbs me while I'm watching CSI.


(I picked them up on holiday as a souvineer and for work on the house btw.)

AGAINST the militia? Even George Washington's militia? This surprises me. Then again - and that is a fault of our education system - in Italy we do not study much of extra-european history of that era, we focus a lot on pre-revolutionary France.

History has shown that the greatest atrocities have been committed not by an invading force but by the authority in power.

Luckily here in the UK we don't have clearly paranoid people wandering around with guns 'for their own protection' who shoot the first person they feel even slightly threatened by, so it is fairly safe.

According to an article in the BBC, gun crimes rose 6% in 2004-05 in England and Wales. Interesting, guns are banned, yet gun crime rates rose.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm)

Now you're resorting to "what-if" drama ideas. Your average thug trying to break into your house with a crow-bar or mug you with a knife is going to piss himself if he sees that you're armed.


WHAT? The whole 'self-defense' arguement is a "What If" drama.

Also - your average thug breaking into a house does so when they know there is nobody home. Criminals even ring doorbells to make sure.

According to an article in the BBC, gun crimes rose 6% in 2004-05 in England and Wales. Interesting, guns are banned, yet gun crime rates rose.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm)

It's crazy! Don't criminals know that guns are illegal? :rolleyes:

Which also makes your gun really easy for you to get to when an armed robber already holding his gun walks into your bedroom.

That's the trade-off. That's why you strongly teach your children about gun safety. Again, they're not evil devices. That requires a person.


Any figures for the amount of violent crimes assisted via the use of a gun?


Why yes, actually. In 1997, there were fifteen thousand, two hundred eighty-nine murders (15,289)in the United States. The perpetrators used a firearm in ten thousand, three hundred sixty-eight (10,368) of these instances. That same year, there were about seven million, nine hundred twenty-seven thousand (7,927,000) violent crimes. Criminals were reported to use a gun in about six hundred ninety-one thousand (691,000) of these occurances.

Two million deterred by the brandishing of a gun.


Personally I think the self-defense arguement is bunk, all it does is encourage a criminal to carry a gun and be more prepared to use it. A criminal will be much more prepared to shoot you with little provacation if he thinks you're about to shoot him first.

Incorrect. Studies show that more often than not, an armed criminal will be encouraged to flee when he becomes aware of the fact that their intended victim is packing heat.

http://www.gunfacts.info/


I am not anti-gun. But I think fear is a bad reason for people to own them.

I am pro-gun. I think fear is a bad reason for people not to own them.

I protect my family by not living in a country where any idiot can get a gun and give it to their children.

It's crazy! Don't criminals know that guns are illegal? :rolleyes:

Maybe they didn't get the memo?

Shit, its' 2am, time for bed. Nighto folks.

WHAT? The whole 'self-defense' arguement is a "What If" drama.


Umm. No. http://www.gunfacts.info/ for facts about the number of times a firearm is used for self-defense. That isn't a what if drama; it's a hard fact that the anti-gun crowd would like to overlook because it stands in their way of stripping the populace of their only means of defense from the tyranny they seek to impose in the name of "safety."

According to an article in the BBC, gun crimes rose 6% in 2004-05 in England and Wales. Interesting, guns are banned, yet gun crime rates rose.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm)

Do those figures on gun crime include the people arrested or convicted for owning illegal guns?

Also - shotguns are still allowed - which would make a FAR more effective home defense weapon than a pistol.

If the rise is in street crime then you can't argue it is due to banning guns, as it has been illegal to carry handguns in the street for a long long time. Much longer than the recent ban. Also the number of people who own guns in this country has always been pretty low - and 'self defense' was not even an issue when it came to banning them.

I protect my family by not living in a country where any idiot can get a gun and give it to their children.

Typical ignorance. I wish information was pounded into people overseas (where the vast majority of anti-gunners live due to their gun-free nations). It would help clear up a lot of the misconceptions. For example, not "every idiot" can own a gun.

Umm. No. http://www.gunfacts.info/ for facts about the number of times a firearm is used for self-defense. That isn't a what if drama; it's a hard fact that the anti-gun crowd would like to overlook because it stands in their way of stripping the populace of their only means of defense from the tyranny they seek to impose in the name of "safety."

Your arguement is "What if someone attacks you", but you refuse to look at a situation of "What if someone attacks you and already has a gun in their hand while yours is safely in it's holster."

I tend to believe that the thinking behind the 2nd shows up better in their writings. Jefferson especially wrote frequently on the merits of a private citizen owning and bearing arms. He was a firm believer in a citizens ownership and usage of arms.

And I believe the same theme shows up in the papers of other Founders.

Well, understand their motivations: The citizenry just rose up and overthrew an oppressive government. Guns played a strong role in that. One can certainly understand their motives in securing for future generations the right to throw off oppressive government that they had to earn the hard way.

Its always an eye opener to the american paranoia on NS Forums.

I know nothing about guns. I don't wish to know anything about guns. The introduction of guns to society creates paranio and arrogance, a quickness to kill because you can.

The UK has some gun crime but this is due to the drug culture - gangs and drugs. and i think the glamourisation of american media.

Nevertheless - it is not that frequent, and every incident still makes the news.

If guns became legal in Britain, I'd be out of here!!!!.

The worls is full of morons! a world full of gun weilding morons gives me the fear!!!!

Well, understand their motivations: The citizenry just rose up and overthrew an oppressive government. Guns played a strong role in that. One can certainly understand their motives in securing for future generations the right to throw off oppressive government that they had to earn the hard way.

I demand a right to wmds. I need to keep up with the times.

I demand a right to wmds. I need to keep up with the times.

Oh, by all means. I think people should have the right to own nuclear weapons. But I think they should require a manually entered detonation code and have no timer. :)

I thought the Second Amendment was introduced to allow the creation of the militia in case the King's soldiers marched up the Potomac (which they did in 1812). All this "right to carry a gun wherever and whenever I like" things that the NRA claims as the correct interpretation of it is just that - one of the possible interpretations.
Then again, I'm no US citizen to teach you the meaning of your Constitution. I just tell you that if you have to keep a firearm ready to feel safe, there is something wrong in your society - too much fear, too much crime, too few police. Maybe even too much poverty - poverty often leads to crime.

The Second Amendment is as clear as day and the Founders' intentions were just as clear when they wrote it.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 (June 25, 1788).

"A free people ought not only to be armed…" George Washington, speech of January 8, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

Every where in the Constitution where the words "the right of the people" are listed, it is a direct right given to all citizens.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

I demand a right to wmds. I need to keep up with the times.

I want some landmines for the front lawn. And some laser tripwire explosives for the front path.

See how many people try breaking in if you have a THIS (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40480000/jpg/_40480409_landminesbody.jpg) sign in your front garden.

'course - you have to keep the rotwiellers on a shorter leash. But sometimes the tradeoff is worth it.

Your arguement is "What if someone attacks you", but you refuse to look at a situation of "What if someone attacks you and already has a gun in their hand while yours is safely in it's holster."

No, more argument is that a criminal--even armed--is far more likely to backoff from attacking you if he realizes you're armed. Stats back me up on this--criminals have a higher tendancy to flee when confronted with a gun than they are to stick around and duke it out. A crook goes after what they percieve to be a weaker person. If that weaker person just so happens to be carrying, then the crook is likely to back down. Or get shot. I'd hope for both, but that makes me mean.

If someone approaches you with a gun (and you're packing), the answer is fairly simple in my opinion. Draw yours and, if necessary, fire. I hope, for your sake, you don't miss.

The Second Amendment is as clear as day and the Founders' intentions were just as clear when they wrote it.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitution of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…" Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789 quoting Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State by the Honorable Samuel Adams, Esquire.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (Julian P. Boyd, Ed., 1950).

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 (June 25, 1788).

"A free people ought not only to be armed…" George Washington, speech of January 8, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

Every where in the Constitution where the words "the right of the people" are listed, it is a direct right given to all citizens.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/general/FoundersQuotes.htm
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
It's pretty much futile for anyone to suggest that the Founding Fathers were not all for the boom-boom sticks.

It's pretty much futile for anyone to suggest that the Founding Fathers were not all for the boom-boom sticks.

And, sadly, some try. Try and fail, but try nonetheless. :(

Boom-boom sticks are fun. :p

No, more argument is that a criminal--even armed--is far more likely to backoff from attacking you if he realizes you're armed. Stats back me up on this--criminals have a higher tendancy to flee when confronted with a gun than they are to stick around and duke it out. A crook goes after what they percieve to be a weaker person. If that weaker person just so happens to be carrying, then the crook is likely to back down. Or get shot. I'd hope for both, but that makes me mean.

If someone approaches you with a gun (and you're packing), the answer is fairly simple in my opinion. Draw yours and, if necessary, fire. I hope, for your sake, you don't miss.

Why not just get robbed? 100 bucks, nobody gets hurt, you give a description to the police.

Why not just get robbed? 100 bucks, nobody gets hurt, you give a description to the police.

And if the police never catch that person? "Whoops, oh well. Out a hundred hard-earned bucks. Gee shucks, I sure hope that doesn't happen again."

I'm not going to allow someone to take my personal property from me by force. It's mine and they cannot have it. It's not their right to take it from me and I am well within my rights to use whatever means necessary to attempt to prevent them from taking it from me. I want you to watch this (http://www.free-market.net/resources/introduction.swf). I think it might give you an idea at what I'm getting at and why I would not settle for letting someone steal from me.

Besides, I carry a lot more than a $100 in my wallet. ;)

The ultimate solution? Carry a personal Bat-signaling device on you at all times.

ultimate solution? Carry a personal Bat-signaling device on you at all times.


'Ultimate'? Hah! Penultimate at best. :p

The Ultimate solution is to be Batman! :D

I would not be able to shoot someone even if I were holding a gun, and would be immediately disarmed and shot with my own gun. Since I KNOW this, it makes no sense at all for me to consider carrying a gun.

So I carry a cellphone. I live in NYC, and if I call the police, they will come immediately. If I see someone trying to threaten me or hear someone breaking in, I call. Then I simply say "I have just called the police. You have approximately two minutes to get as far away as you can manage. If you're stupid enough to harm me before you run away, you can be guaranteed a considerably longer jail term and I am sure your new boyfriend will be very happy about that. One one thousand, two one thousand, you should be running, four one thousand..."

guns should be banned. ireland has even scricter laws than uk.
only special force to deal with gangs and terrorists should have guns.
i'm starting to get freaked out with recent gun crimes in my area. shooting outside my house last year, shooting last week around the corner, and hostages few days ago next parrellel road. some guy claimed to have a gun and a grenade. luckily the grenade was old and didnt work.
i know dublin gun crime is probably pretty dam low compare to every other capital city but still there should be no gun crime anywhere. so propose making our laws even tighter. should be counted as attempted murder.

'Ultimate'? Hah! Penultimate at best. :p

The Ultimate solution is to be Batman! :D

Sustained. :)

According to an article in the BBC, gun crimes rose 6% in 2004-05 in England and Wales. Interesting, guns are banned, yet gun crime rates rose.

BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm)

Yes, and gun crime in the UK rose again this year to 4,036 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6054264.stm) incidents in a year (which also includes figures for air guns and imitation guns), which is less than 1% of the 700,000 reported crimes involving a gun in the US in 1997 (figures quoted by Colerica).

It commands respect because everyone realizes it can kill you. One tends to respect something that instills fear. I'm quite glad it inspires fear in people, otherwise it's useless. Would you attack someone with a baseball bat made like a swimming fun noodle? No, because it doesn't do anything to them but make them angry. It's useless. A weapon is only good if it can inflict significant damage, pain, or death on an assailant. Frankly, if someone comes after me, I'd like to kill them, not just hurt them. But I guess that makes me a sadistic, evil person, no?

You confuse fear with respect. They're not the same thing. Respect is recognising someone or something in a distanced manner, fear is simply helpless hate.

On thing will prevent crimes, the other might lead to more crimes.


See number one. Yes, accidents do happen. But there are FAR more non-gun related accidents than there are gun-related accidents. You be the judge on what's more dangerous--a car or a gun? You're nine times as likely to be accidentally killed by your doctor than you are a firearm. Scary.

Life is dangerous. But why add extra danger to the whole thing?

[qupte]
Now you're resorting to "what-if" drama ideas. Your average thug trying to break into your house with a crow-bar or mug you with a knife is going to piss himself if he sees that you're armed. [/quote]

Different cultures here. While burlaries do happen now and then (although nowhere near as often as in the US), burglary while the occupants are actually in the house are an incredibly rare thing. They would normally occur if the burglar thought the occupant was away. Happened to me once, I had the lights out in the house, and I heard someone trying to open the front window... I simply asked what they wanted in a loud voice, and that was enough to send them packing straight away.



Police officers themselves even admit that their existance is more for post-crime than it is for preventing the crime as it's happening.

They do? Not round here, they don't.

When I lived in Pheonix AZ, I always carried a Glock 17 9mm pistol and had several other weapons around the house. Now that I live in the boonies of upstate New York, I feel perfectly safe with my swords (at home) and my knives (on the street).

guns should be banned. ireland has even scricter laws than uk.
only special force to deal with gangs and terrorists should have guns.
i'm starting to get freaked out with recent gun crimes in my area. shooting outside my house last year, shooting last week around the corner, and hostages few days ago next parrellel road. some guy claimed to have a gun and a grenade. luckily the grenade was old and didnt work.
i know dublin gun crime is probably pretty dam low compare to every other capital city but still there should be no gun crime anywhere. so propose making our laws even tighter. should be counted as attempted murder.

Because banning guns will stop violent crime. Of course, the logic that exists there can't be argued. When the criminals lose the ability to use firearms (assuming the myth that all could be destroyed), they will merely switch to less high-tech of a weapon, particulary knives. Then you will ban them. Then you will eat your steak with only a fork. Then forks will be banned.

A eighteen thousand household items on the blacklist later, we end up with only being able to own bananas.

Then those, too, will be outlawed.

More government control is never the answer to any question. Those that advocate the elimination of the people's ability to defend themselves from assailants (the biggest of which is the government, itself) are advocating the installation of tyranny in exchange for the security they think they're receiving. What was that that Ben Franklin said about liberty and security? Y'know, the quote people seme to so often reference about the United States these days..?

Trust me, this guy was making threatening gester such as shaking hand out the window, yelling, throwing stuff and showing off the middle finger. "Tough guy" wanted a fight, well my friend gave it to him.

I trust you he wanted a fight. Why make him happy by giving it to him?:D

Mossberg 500(R) Pump Action.
Ruger 22/45 Bull (not the Mark II)

A shotgun is the best thing for CQB and up-close engagements (which is what most home-invasion scenarios are).

The Ruger is dependable and replaced my IMI Desert Eagle. The Eagle jams like a mother and costed a fortune. The recoil from the Eagle meant I needed as long as o.3 seconds to clear my sight picture which I consider pretty bad.

History has shown that the greatest atrocities have been committed not by an invading force but by the authority in power.

I doubt that invaded Soviets in WWII would agree. Ukrainians were quite supportive of the Nazi "liberators" till they started killing people just because they could.

Because banning guns will stop violent crime. Of course, the logic that exists there can't be argued. When the criminals lose the ability to use firearms (assuming the myth that all could be destroyed), they will merely switch to less high-tech of a weapon, particulary knives. Then you will ban them. Then you will eat your steak with only a fork. Then forks will be banned.

i can defend myself against a fork or a knife. people who cant can run. guns are hard to defend against at long distances. upfront a bit easier.

also i believe strong government control over most things.

You confuse fear with respect. They're not the same thing. Respect is recognising someone or something in a distanced manner, fear is simply helpless hate.

No, respect can be earned through fear. The knowledge that something is deadly garners respect. I reference any lethal animals out there. You know to avoid them if you cross their path, no? Why do you know that? They can kill you. Simply stated. Fear is not helpless hate in any way. It's the knowledge that something can harm you and take away your most precious, basic thing--your life. All things have fear and many things, living and inanimate, can invoke fear.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good or evil; by heroes or villians. It is nothing more and nothing less. It's up to the user who wields it to decide what it does. A sword, knife, baseball bat--anything--is no different when it comes to being used as a weapon.


Life is dangerous. But why add extra danger to the whole thing?

Why do you get in a heavy of hunk of metal that's capable of high speeds? That's something that kills far more people--accidentally or intentionally--than guns ever could. Isn't driving adding extra danger to life? Hell, living is dangerous, like you said. That logic dictates something I'd like to call proactive bubblism--trying to shield everyone from something that may or may not happen.



[qupte]
Different cultures here. While burlaries do happen now and then (although nowhere near as often as in the US), burglary while the occupants are actually in the house are an incredibly rare thing. They would normally occur if the burglar thought the occupant was away. Happened to me once, I had the lights out in the house, and I heard someone trying to open the front window... I simply asked what they wanted in a loud voice, and that was enough to send them packing straight away.

I happen to live in a low-crime, more rural area (though I'm currently attending school in the center of a far more urban area) so I don't personally have much experience with crime (though it does happen and is increasing drastically where I'm from). However, often times a criminal will break into a house he assumes is empty only to find that it isn't. I can think of very few things that are personally scarier than that. Someone inside your house, violating your rights and wholly there with the intention to steal (hopefully just theft; this excludes criminals with the direct intention to harm you) from you. That's a personally disturbing thing to think about. I prefer protection (no sex puns intended..I think).

They do? Not round here, they don't.

Police know they can't get to the majority of crimes while they're happening. They simply don't function as on-the-spot prevention. They're there to apprehend the baddies after the damage has all ready been done to see that justice is served.

Because banning guns will stop violent crime. Of course, the logic that exists there can't be argued. When the criminals lose the ability to use firearms (assuming the myth that all could be destroyed), they will merely switch to less high-tech of a weapon, particulary knives. Then you will ban them. Then you will eat your steak with only a fork. Then forks will be banned.

A eighteen thousand household items on the blacklist later, we end up with only being able to own bananas.

Then those, too, will be outlawed.

More government control is never the answer to any question. Those that advocate the elimination of the people's ability to defend themselves from assailants (the biggest of which is the government, itself) are advocating the installation of tyranny in exchange for the security they think they're receiving. What was that that Ben Franklin said about liberty and security? Y'know, the quote people seme to so often reference about the United States these days..?


Yep, the mean tyranny that is Ireland today. :rolleyes:

Personally, I am perfectly happy to live in a country with very few firearms around. And I think the simple fact that so many US citizens feel the need to actually sleep with some kind of weapon next to their bed, while I know perfectly well that simply making my presence known will deterr most criminals here is an indication for the safety of living in both countries, wouldn't you say?

Because banning guns will stop violent crime. Of course, the logic that exists there can't be argued. When the criminals lose the ability to use firearms (assuming the myth that all could be destroyed), they will merely switch to less high-tech of a weapon, particulary knives. Then you will ban them. Then you will eat your steak with only a fork. Then forks will be banned.

A eighteen thousand household items on the blacklist later, we end up with only being able to own bananas.

Then those, too, will be outlawed.



so its a move, albeit a silly, exaggerated and hypothetical one, from lethal guns to bannanas. from a tool designed to kill and inflict serious and lethal damage, to... forks and bannanas. sounds good to me.


More government control is never the answer to any question. Those that advocate the elimination of the people's ability to defend themselves from assailants (the biggest of which is the government, itself) are advocating the installation of tyranny in exchange for the security they think they're receiving. What was that that Ben Franklin said about liberty and security? Y'know, the quote people seme to so often reference about the United States these days..?

ah i love seeing stereotypical anti-governmental paranoia in action...

i can defend myself against a fork or a knife. people who cant can run. guns are hard to defend against at long distances. upfront a bit easier.

Yes, guns are hard to defend against a long distance. The majority of shootings, though, don't happen at long distances. It's close-ranged (not that it really makes a difference). But distance is irrelevant. If someone wants to hurt you, they will attempt to do so whether or not they have a gun or not. You're going to be greatly hard-pressed to defend yourself against someone armed with a knife or club when you're unarmed. Unless you're a ninja because ninjas are awesome and if you were a ninja, you could just leap up and somersault kick his head off like Frank West.

Whoa.

I've gotta stop that.



also i believe strong government control over most things.

I'm sorry to hear then that you advocate tyranny. Rarely does any good come from the government gaining more control over its citizens.

No, respect can be earned through fear. The knowledge that something is deadly garners respect. I reference any lethal animals out there. You know to avoid them if you cross their path, no?

why would want to live somewhere where there are animals that can kill you?

and yes i wouldnt mind banning cars and replacing them with a top notch bus and tram service, as long they have highly skilled drivers. it would reduce drunk drivers, accidents and make people wlak or cycle more, making them healthier.

ah i love seeing stereotypical anti-governmental paranoia in action...

I'm sorry if I prefer freedom to tyranny. An invasive government is wrong. Plain and simple.

And the standard question - If guns make people safer then why does America have such a high murder rate?

I'm sorry to hear then that you advocate tyranny. Rarely does any good come from the government gaining more control over its citizens.

i prefare to call it parentalism. no, i didnt not make up that word.

And the standard question - If guns make people safer then why does America have such a high murder rate?

check and mate!

No, respect can be earned through fear. The knowledge that something is deadly garners respect. I reference any lethal animals out there. You know to avoid them if you cross their path, no? Why do you know that? They can kill you. Simply stated. Fear is not helpless hate in any way. It's the knowledge that something can harm you and take away your most precious, basic thing--your life. All things have fear and many things, living and inanimate, can invoke fear.

I'd be hard put to find a dangerous animal round here....



Why do you get in a heavy of hunk of metal that's capable of high speeds? That's something that kills far more people--accidentally or intentionally--than guns ever could. Isn't driving adding extra danger to life? Hell, living is dangerous, like you said. That logic dictates something I'd like to call proactive bubblism--trying to shield everyone from something that may or may not happen.

I don't. I don't drive. Not because I don't want to risk my own life, I've no problem with that. I had a look at accidents and statistics and decided I'm not going to risk other people's lifes just for the sake of my own comfort.


I happen to live in a low-crime, more rural area (though I'm currently attending school in the center of a far more urban area) so I don't personally have much experience with crime (though it does happen and is increasing drastically where I'm from). However, often times a criminal will break into a house he assumes is empty only to find that it isn't. I can think of very few things that are personally scarier than that. Someone inside your house, violating your rights and wholly there with the intention to steal (hopefully just theft; this excludes criminals with the direct intention to harm you) from you. That's a personally disturbing thing to think about. I prefer protection (no sex puns intended..I think).

As I said, it happened to me once in 32 years that someone tried to break into my house, and simply making it known that I was at home sent them packing. And I have always lived in urban areas and cities.


Police know they can't get to the majority of crimes while they're happening. They simply don't function as on-the-spot prevention. They're there to apprehend the baddies after the damage has all ready been done to see that justice is served.

They can't? The local police station is 600 meters down the road from my house, and the next one from there's a 3 minute drive away. Our neighbours had to call them once about a window that's been broken by someone, they were there in literally no time at all. I've waited longer for a taxi.

I had never realised that so many Americans quake with fear like little schoolgirls everytime they step outside of their houses.

I'm sorry if I prefer freedom to tyranny. An invasive government is wrong. Plain and simple.

i guess we have an "invasive government" in this country - we do ban guns after all. strange that this country has existed largely without tyranny for many hundereds of years, isn't it?

however, now that guns exist surely we should all arm ourselves just in case the government decides to something a bit funny. hang on.... we have a government. we have gun control. we don't have tyranny. strange that, too :rolleyes:

why would want to live somewhere where there are animals that can kill you?

and yes i wouldnt mind banning cars and replacing them with a top notch bus and tram service, as long they have highly skilled drivers. it would reduce drunk drivers, accidents and make people wlak or cycle more, making them healthier.

I didn't say I wanted to live where there are animals that can kill you. I was referencing poisonous animals in regards to the fact that you, as an animal, respect them (and give them their distance; you don't seek them out unless you're Steve Irwin..oh wait..) because of what they could do to you. A gun carries (or should carry) that same level of respect. It is a tool that can kill you. That's not to say you should avoid it, but that is to say you should respect it. Respect does come from fear; intimidation is a large aspect of respect.

Banning cars? Oye ve. I agree that people should exercise and ride bikes more, but that's not the gov't's decision to make. If I want to overeat myself to death at the age of 25 and weigh 600lbs, it's my damn right to do so and no one can make me do otherwise if I don't want them to. Again, kindly watch the Philosophy of Liberty video I posted a link to a bit ago. It's a good set up and more people should see it. Banning cars. Sheesh. What's next? Do you want the government to appoint someone to wipe your ass for you? Honestly, is there a cut-off point to the level of private invasion the government should do?

i guess we have an "invasive government" in this country - we do ban guns after all. strange that this country has existed largely without tyranny for many hundereds of years, isn't it?

however, now that guns exist surely we should all arm ourselves just in case the government decides to something a bit funny. hang on.... we have a government. we have gun control. we don't have tyranny. strange that, too :rolleyes:

Given that you have an undisputably elected government, that's more than people in the US can say these days. ;)
Seriously, if all those guns are for protection against tyranny, where's the revolution now???

Given that you have an undisputably elected government, that's more than people in the US can say these days. ;)
Seriously, if all those guns are for protection against tyranny, where's the revolution now???
It's not tyranny as the governmwent say they will only use their new powers over freedoms on people they say are bad.

I didn't say I wanted to live where there are animals that can kill you. I was referencing poisonous animals in regards to the fact that you, as an animal, respect them (and give them their distance; you don't seek them out unless you're Steve Irwin..oh wait..) because of what they could do to you. A gun carries (or should carry) that same level of respect. It is a tool that can kill you. That's not to say you should avoid it, but that is to say you should respect it. Respect does come from fear; intimidation is a large aspect of respect.

Banning cars? Oye ve. I agree that people should exercise and ride bikes more, but that's not the gov't's decision to make. If I want to overeat myself to death at the age of 25 and weigh 600lbs, it's my damn right to do so and no one can make me do otherwise if I don't want them to. Again, kindly watch the Philosophy of Liberty video I posted a link to a bit ago. It's a good set up and more people should see it. Banning cars. Sheesh. What's next? Do you want the government to appoint someone to wipe your ass for you? Honestly, is there a cut-off point to the level of private invasion the government should do?


Wouldn't you say that if the majority of a country wanted a system like that, it's their democratic right to have it?
Or is democracy only what you want and think, and everything else is tyranny? If so, I suggest reading a dictionary instead of linking to movies for a change.

walk tall, keep myself fit, lock the front door at night. worked so far.

I'd be hard put to find a dangerous animal round here....

You missed my point by leaps and boudns.


I don't. I don't drive. Not because I don't want to risk my own life, I've no problem with that. I had a look at accidents and statistics and decided I'm not going to risk other people's lifes just for the sake of my own comfort.


I'd honestly rather not drive, either. Not because I don't like to or that it's dangerous. It's because I'm A) bad at it [seriously; I fail at parallel parking :(] and B) it's rather boring. While you might not drive, hundreds of millions of others do. Are you anyone to say they shouldn't because it's dangerous?


As I said, it happened to me once in 32 years that someone tried to break into my house, and simply making it known that I was at home sent them packing. And I have always lived in urban areas and cities.

And I hope that works in all cases. But often it doesn't. Frankly, I'd rather have the reassurance that I'm carrying something that will make the dude in my house stop and think twice about what he's doing.


They can't? The local police station is 600 meters down the road from my house, and the next one from there's a 3 minute drive away. Our neighbours had to call them once about a window that's been broken by someone, they were there in literally no time at all. I've waited longer for a taxi.

From my (albeit limited with crime) experience in cities, they aren't that fast nor that close. I guess it's a fundamental difference in opinions. I'd rather take things into my own hands than wait to be saved by someone who may or may not arrive on time.

check and mate!

I'm just wondering which arguement will be copied and pasted/paraphrased.

For example:

"It would be even higher without gun ownership. Dispite the fact that any other western nation which does not have widespread gun ownership would indicate otherwise"

"Murder rates have fallen in the last 15 (or whatever) years, and dispite evidence this is also due to social reform, reform of the criminal justice system and even abortion I will choose to attribute it all to gun ownership. Dispite the fact that the vast majority of those murders were with guns."

i guess we have an "invasive government" in this country - we do ban guns after all. strange that this country has existed largely without tyranny for many hundereds of years, isn't it?

Well, you do have an invasive gov't for banning firearms. Any gov't that strips away the freedoms of its citizens doesn't deserve to stand in my opinion. I hope that the FBI isn't paying attention to this post. *waves to the dudes in suits* ;)


however, now that guns exist surely we should all arm ourselves just in case the government decides to something a bit funny. hang on.... we have a government. we have gun control. we don't have tyranny. strange that, too :rolleyes:

And you'd do what, exactly, if a leader declares himself dictator?

Oh wait. You all ready apparently support massive government so I don't know if it's too far of a stretch to say you wouldn't mind living enslaved to the state.

No, respect can be earned through fear. The knowledge that something is deadly garners respect. I reference any lethal animals out there. You know to avoid them if you cross their path, no? Why do you know that? They can kill you. Simply stated. Fear is not helpless hate in any way. It's the knowledge that something can harm you and take away your most precious, basic thing--your life. All things have fear and many things, living and inanimate, can invoke fear.


fear =/= respect

I'd honestly rather not drive, either. Not because I don't like to or that it's dangerous. It's because I'm A) bad at it [seriously; I fail at parallel parking :(] and B) it's rather boring. While you might not drive, hundreds of millions of others do. Are you anyone to say they shouldn't because it's dangerous?

Never said that. But I would opt for providing good, reliable, comprehensive and affordable public transport as an incentive to get as many people as possible away from the wheel. I'm all for choice.


And I hope that works in all cases. But often it doesn't. Frankly, I'd rather have the reassurance that I'm carrying something that will make the dude in my house stop and think twice about what he's doing.

If he hadn't run, I'd probably have gotten the rolling pin from the kitchen, after giving the police a quick call. Then I would have made sure to make enough of a din to wake my neighbours, too. And I've got a feeling that was what he expected and what sent him running in the first place.


From my (albeit limited with crime) experience in cities, they aren't that fast nor that close. I guess it's a fundamental difference in opinions. I'd rather take things into my own hands than wait to be saved by someone who may or may not arrive on time.

In that case, those cities are in dire need to stock up on police forces. If you can't rely on police or ambulance, that's a very bad sign indeed for the state of affairs.

Well, you do have an invasive gov't for banning firearms. Any gov't that strips away the freedoms of its citizens doesn't deserve to stand in my opinion. I hope that the FBI isn't paying attention to this post. *waves to the dudes in suits* ;)

Well, they're free to drink when they're 18. How dare your oppressive government take away that freedom from its people??? How dare it be so invasive???


And you'd do what, exactly, if a leader declares himself dictator?

Oh wait. You all ready apparently support massive government so I don't know if it's too far of a stretch to say you wouldn't mind living enslaved to the state.

Let's see... Blair got a majority in the elections. Bush... definitely didn't the first time round, and there's a dispute about the second time, too.
So, what did you do against this undemocratic dictatorship?

It commands respect because everyone realizes it can kill you. One tends to respect something that instills fear. I'm quite glad it inspires fear in people, otherwise it's useless. Would you attack someone with a baseball bat made like a swimming fun noodle? No, because it doesn't do anything to them but make them angry. It's useless. A weapon is only good if it can inflict significant damage, pain, or death on an assailant. Frankly, if someone comes after me, I'd like to kill them, not just hurt them. But I guess that makes me a sadistic, evil person, no?

See number one. Yes, accidents do happen. But there are FAR more non-gun related accidents than there are gun-related accidents. You be the judge on what's more dangerous--a car or a gun? You're nine times as likely to be accidentally killed by your doctor than you are a firearm. Scary.

Yes, you do have to extra careful...careful to instruct your children--who you have to understand aren't stupid (never undestimate a child)--that a gun doesn't make someone invincible. It is not a toy. When they learn to understand that, they are bettered by it. Guns aren't evil nor do they cause evil. Only those who wield them can do that. And if they didn't have guns to use, they'd find far more ghastly methods.

Deterrance through an overt threat. Intimidation is the biggest part of deterrance. If you pull a gun on someone intending to do you harm, the stats are with you that they will back down.

Now you're resorting to "what-if" drama ideas. Your average thug trying to break into your house with a crow-bar or mug you with a knife is going to piss himself if he sees that you're armed.

Police officers themselves even admit that their existance is more for post-crime than it is for preventing the crime as it's happening.

1.Any person tends to hate things that inspire fear to them, even if he's the utmost coward. And people usually act against what they hate.
If someone comes after you, and you have means of stopping him without killing him, and you still kill him, yes, this makes you an evil person. Self-defence is not necessarily "kill". It is "prevent being wronged/hurt/killed", and it should be done with minimal injury to the aggressor.

2.Ok there are a lot of car wrecks. The difference is that a car is a tool intended to carry people and things around, and occasionally there is an accident and people die - but that's not the standard USE of that tool. A weapon is a tool designed to kill, so no wonder people get killed by weapons as it is the use the tool was designed for. Moreover, without vehicles it is difficult to move, and without weapons it is difficult to kill. Moving is ok, killing is ethically questionable.
And yes, I trust my wits up to the point I can say that a car is less directly threatening to human life than a gun. Else policemen would brandish their cars when arresting a criminal.

3.When I say kids are stupid, I mean they do stupid things because they lack knowledge of consequences. Maybe I should've said they ACT as stupid people.
Of course tools aren't evil. An unanimated object has no moral qualities itself. It is the purpose that matters. And weapons are more prone to "evil" use than a car, although I would better define "evil" as "unjustified damage to human being" in this case.

4.There you go again. You previously stated that if you want to inflict harm, you'd use a gun. So would your aggressor - and he would have a READY gun.

5.Same goes for the average thug. Passive, safe measures like living in a REAL home, made of bricks and concrete (not a wooden cabin!), a steel door and proper locks will keep the crowbar guy out of your home, without resorting to dangerous tools like weapons. Why excalate threat level when you can lower it?
And I'm not resorting to "what-if" drama. I try to analyse problems before acting, and if I can get better understanding via analysing hypotetical situations, I will be more ready and act better when the hypotesis becomes real. Think first, then - if necessary - act.

6.This confirms that some changes must be done in the "law and order" policies of your area. Also crime prevention is not just for police. The whole society has to build a system, that includes measures to rehabilitate criminals and wrongdoers, eradicate poverty as it is the most fertile ground for low-level crime, etc.

And the standard question - If guns make people safer then why does America have such a high murder rate?

Because people kill people. I don't have an answer for why murder happens or why America has a high rate. I do know that Switzerland, a nation with compulsory gun ownership, has an incredibly low crime rate. A correlation, perhaps?

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Summed up in a nice little package, "In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

Is there a connection? I guess that's up for you to decide on your own.

Personally, I'm more inclined to blame how desensitized we are to violence than I am to say guns are the root of all evil in the nation. Am I wrong? Maybe. I don't know. What I preach is most is not gun ownership, but gun knowledge. I just wish to see more people informed about the facts of guns. I don't care if they own one nor am I going to push it on them. I just want people informed.

Call me a fool, I guess.

i prefare to call it parentalism. no, i didnt not make up that word.

No, I know you didn't make that up. I guess you've succeeded in confusing me about where you're getting at with parentalism. Could you clarify? It is, after all, 6:09am here and I'm running solely on caffeine and nicotine.

Well, you do have an invasive gov't for banning firearms. Any gov't that strips away the freedoms of its citizens doesn't deserve to stand in my opinion. I hope that the FBI isn't paying attention to this post. *waves to the dudes in suits* ;)


they can watch all they want - i'm pretty sure i don't care in the slightest :p

And you'd do what, exactly, if a leader declares himself dictator?

Oh wait. You all ready apparently support massive government so I don't know if it's too far of a stretch to say you wouldn't mind living enslaved to the state.

first of all, political checks and balances would prevent that from happening. second off, we have a dictator in the queen - she would, politically speaking, have the power to dissolve parliament and effectively 'fire' the Prime Minister/Dictator. any president of a decent democratic system also should have this power over the PM.
then there's the House of Lords which would at the first stop prevent any of the PM/Dictator's legilation from passing.

the only way this could happen, i believe, would be for there to be a military coup (though the military swear allegiance to crown iirc). the thing is, there's not much anyone can do about that - me and my neighbour having a guns would do precisely fuck all against a professionally trained army with tanks and planes and everything...
the EU wouldn't stand for it either, and would most likely intervene (the political pull and military power, if you're boiling this down to simple militaristic force, of 25 countries within the EU is something not to be overlooked...)

this irrational fear and paranoia over "WHAT IF" the government did ev1L things!!!1!! is quite ridiculous, but it seems strangely ingrained on the american psyche :confused:

why would want to live somewhere where there are animals that can kill you?

and yes i wouldnt mind banning cars and replacing them with a top notch bus and tram service, as long they have highly skilled drivers. it would reduce drunk drivers, accidents and make people wlak or cycle more, making them healthier.

Also when you got good public transportation throughout the night, you can ride a bus to the bar of your liking, get drunk, and get back by bus, without that "cannot drink, gotta drive" annoying thing...

Tramways rule!

Because people kill people. I don't have an answer for why murder happens or why America has a high rate. I do know that Switzerland, a nation with compulsory gun ownership, has an incredibly low crime rate. A correlation, perhaps?

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Summed up in a nice little package, "In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

Is there a connection? I guess that's up for you to decide on your own.

Personally, I'm more inclined to blame how desensitized we are to violence than I am to say guns are the root of all evil in the nation. Am I wrong? Maybe. I don't know. What I preach is most is not gun ownership, but gun knowledge. I just wish to see more people informed about the facts of guns. I don't care if they own one nor am I going to push it on them. I just want people informed.

Call me a fool, I guess.


Yep. A close correlation. The guns are military guns, and the citizens have to account for every single bullet. They are - as far as I know - not allowed to use the guns other then in military training and military operations.

I'm not saying that guns are to blame, that's ridiculous. And I'm well aware that it's largely the cultural differences between Europe and the US that make Europe one of the safest places and the US ... well, not so safe. Some 3rd world countries are safer. I think gun ownership is simply one manifestion of those differences, one aspect of the problem if you want.

Well, they're free to drink when they're 18. How dare your oppressive government take away that freedom from its people??? How dare it be so invasive???

Exactly. I entirely agree with you. The drinking age SHOULD be 18. I strongly advocate it to be. I've been called an anarchist numerous times. I don't think of myself as one, but I guess it fits for...umm..certain things. If you think you're arguing with a cookie-cutter Republican or Democrat, you're wrong. I'm a Libertarian (if anything; I like to avoid titles, unless it's Colerica, King of Vampires or Colerica, God of Awesome). If it were up to me, I'd dismantle the current US gov't, fire most people involved, and eradicate a vast majority of the laws it has set up. I want as little government involvement in the lives of its citizens as possible. It's goal in life is to maintain order/internal infrastructure and protect the people's rights of life, liberty, and property.


Let's see... Blair got a majority in the elections. Bush... definitely didn't the first time round, and there's a dispute about the second time, too.
So, what did you do against this undemocratic dictatorship?

The popular vote doesn't elect the President in America. We are not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic where our leader is elected by the Electoral College, which George W. Bush (for better or worse; I'm currently going with "worse") won both times.

Wouldn't you say that if the majority of a country wanted a system like that, it's their democratic right to have it?
Or is democracy only what you want and think, and everything else is tyranny? If so, I suggest reading a dictionary instead of linking to movies for a change.

If the people honestly wanted that, then I say let them. It's not up to the gov't to decide. But that's not what we were talking about. Kindly stop introducing an alien, if albeit related, topic to this discussion.

The popular vote doesn't elect the President in America. We are not a democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic where our leader is elected by the Electoral College, which George W. Bush (for better or worse; I'm currently going with "worse") won both times.

Well, there you go then. I prefer living in a more democratic place, myself ;)

fear =/= respect


Fear is a part of respect. You're yet to actually prove otherwise. I've laid out my case for that, I think.

If the people honestly wanted that, then I say let them. It's not up to the gov't to decide. But that's not what we were talking about. Kindly stop introducing an alien, if albeit related, topic to this discussion.

How is it alien? You keep ranting on how irresponsible it is of Europeans not to want to own guns. Yet the legislation on gun ownership has a strong support in the public opinion all over the continent. These laws are built on the will of the people here, yet you try to tell them they should change them?

Fear is a part of respect. You're yet to actually prove otherwise. I've laid out my case for that, I think.

I respect my friends, family, co-workers, neighbours.... Doesn't mean I fear them. On the contrary.

Because people kill people. I don't have an answer for why murder happens or why America has a high rate. I do know that Switzerland, a nation with compulsory gun ownership, has an incredibly low crime rate. A correlation, perhaps?

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Summed up in a nice little package, "In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

Is there a connection? I guess that's up for you to decide on your own.

Personally, I'm more inclined to blame how desensitized we are to violence than I am to say guns are the root of all evil in the nation. Am I wrong? Maybe. I don't know. What I preach is most is not gun ownership, but gun knowledge. I just wish to see more people informed about the facts of guns. I don't care if they own one nor am I going to push it on them. I just want people informed.

Call me a fool, I guess.

1.I live 50 km from Switzerland and they haven't compulsory gun ownership. They have compulsory military service, like most european countries.

2.So you're less likely to be killed in UK than in the US, says your quote. So what? Is that you were trying to demonstrate?

3.Switzerland has a lot less poverty than the UK. Less problems with integration of immigrates. Also they got a pervasive, socially-minded (maybe even invasive you might call it) government. Maybe violence and crime arise mainly from social issues, don't you think?

4.Of course the main problem is that most people in the western countries got used to violence - even through portrayal of violence in media and entertainment. A social issue, again.

5.Information is never enough, so always thumbs up for more information!

Fear is a part of respect. You're yet to actually prove otherwise. I've laid out my case for that, I think.

no, you can fear a ferocious animal, as per your arguement. it is that fear that drives you to avoid them, however, and the fear alone.

it is not respect. respect has to be earned, and is a positive quality.


Well, there you go then. I prefer living in a more democratic place, myself ;)

true, dat *nods*

I don't own a gun. My father has a hunting rifle. He keeps it locked away. There is no need of guns. If someone threatens to rob you the best thing would be to give them money, then they would probably leave. The USA has the most liberal laws concerning guns. Also the US has the highest number of death due to shooting incidents in the western world.

Personally I prefer the 'freedom' of not being shot by some idiot with a gun, than the 'freedom' of gun ownership. As for the Swiss Harry Lime was right.

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa


"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."

International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.


Deadliest Mass Shooting (10 or more dead) in Western Democracies, 1966-2002



Date
Place Dead Legal status

26 Apr 2002 Erfurt, Germany - 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
27 Sep 2001 Zug, Switzerland 14 + 1 Legal guns, licensed pistol owner
29 Jul 1999 Atlanta, GA, USA 12 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
20 Apr 1999 Littleton, CO, USA 13 + 2 Not legal guns
28 Apr 1996 Port Arthur, Australia 35 Not legal guns
13 Mar 1996 Dunblane, Scotland 17 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
16 Oct 1991 Killeen, TX, USA 23 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
13 Nov 1990 Aramoana, New Zealand 13 + 1 Legal guns, licensed gun owner
18 Jun 1990 Jacksonville, FL, USA 9 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
06 Dec 1989 Montreal, Canada 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
19 Aug 1987 Hungerford, England 16 + 1 Legal guns, pistol club member
20 Aug 1986 Edmond, OK, USA 14 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
18 Jul 1984 San Ysidro, CA, USA 21 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required
01 Aug 1966 Austin, TX, USA 16 + 1 Legal guns, no licence required

Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm
This is why I'm glad my country has banned the use of guns. So don't give me that bull. The swiss case is more than a strange

Never said that. But I would opt for providing good, reliable, comprehensive and affordable public transport as an incentive to get as many people as possible away from the wheel. I'm all for choice.

Cool. I'd like a transport system, but it doesn't have to be public. Again, less government. Contrary to belief, the private sector isn't the source of all evil that some believe it to be.


If he hadn't run, I'd probably have gotten the rolling pin from the kitchen, after giving the police a quick call. Then I would have made sure to make enough of a din to wake my neighbours, too. And I've got a feeling that was what he expected and what sent him running in the first place.

Interesting and unfortunate that you had to endure that. I'm glad that everything went as it did and that no one was harmed and nothing of yours was taken/destroyed. Again, if a crime can be prevented without the brandishing of a firearm, I'm all for it. But I'm also all for giving the citizens that option--that choice (and you're for choices, you said)--if they deem it necessary. I'm not saying, "race downstairs like Rambo, guns blazing." I simply advocate giving the people the right to own a firearm if they feel it necessary to defend themselves with it. If you'd rather rely on the police, so be it. More power to you. Give the cops a job to do rather than harrassing others for no reason. Justify their job--that's what they're there for and I hope they do their job well. I'm just saying, I'd rather the personal feeling of added security that is given by owning a firearm.


In that case, those cities are in dire need to stock up on police forces. If you can't rely on police or ambulance, that's a very bad sign indeed for the state of affairs.

I agree. More police. That's one of the gov't's only duties, in my opinion--maintaining order and civility so we're not gunning down one another in the streets (an exxageration).

no, you can fear a ferocious animal, as per your arguement. it is that fear that drives you to avoid them, however, and the fear alone.

it is not respect. respect has to be earned, and is a positive quality.

No, respect is not just a positive quality. I find respect to indifferent of positive/negative value. You respect that animal by distancing yourself from it. Why? Because you fear it.

Because people kill people. I don't have an answer for why murder happens or why America has a high rate. I do know that Switzerland, a nation with compulsory gun ownership, has an incredibly low crime rate. A correlation, perhaps?


See - The Swiss do not own all those guns for self defense. They own them purely for militia purposes. They are given that ownership after mandatory military service - where one presumes they learn about responsible gun ownership. The guns they have are also very strictly regulated.

Also - your comparison from 1996 - wasn't that the year they drastically changed the way crime here was reported? Are crimes recorded the same in the US?

Well, you do have an invasive gov't for banning firearms. Any gov't that strips away the freedoms of its citizens doesn't deserve to stand in my opinion. I hope that the FBI isn't paying attention to this post. *waves to the dudes in suits*
OMG the Man tramples on my rights as a free citizen! I want Landmines, And C4, And Rocket Launchers, Gimme BioWeapon!

No, respect is not just a positive quality. I find respect to indifferent of positive/negative value. You respect that animal by distancing yourself from it. Why? Because you fear it.

i do not respect that animal in the way i use the term, and the way most people i know seem to use it. i may fear it, but i do not respect it.

The guns are military guns, and the citizens have to account for every single bullet. They are - as far as I know - not allowed to use the guns other then in military training and military operations.


Quite correct.
Yet, the government is trying to abolish the current system of military service (swiss men are in the army from age 16 to 40, with 1/2 weeks of training every year) in favour of 1 year of continual military service, at age 18, to lower the number of military guns the army gives to soldiers - they had a couple cases of homicidal rampages in the last years, the most significative in the council offices of Zug, and swiss people are calling for more control on firearms.

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF02.htm
This is why I'm glad my country has banned the use of guns. So don't give me that bull. The swiss case is more than a strange

Strange? Perhaps. Again, judge for yourself, though I'm sure you've long ago made up your mind strongly against the private ownership of firearms.

I give you these:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/moreguns.htm
http://www.cato.org/events/000616bf.html
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/moreguns.htm

I highly reccommend listening to the third link (audio/video link). It's excellent.

Cool. I'd like a transport system, but it doesn't have to be public. Again, less government. Contrary to belief, the private sector isn't the source of all evil that some believe it to be.

Both Germany and the UK tried that... private mass transport systems are not viable.


Interesting and unfortunate that you had to endure that. I'm glad that everything went as it did and that no one was harmed and nothing of yours was taken/destroyed. Again, if a crime can be prevented without the brandishing of a firearm, I'm all for it. But I'm also all for giving the citizens that option--that choice (and you're for choices, you said)--if they deem it necessary. I'm not saying, "race downstairs like Rambo, guns blazing." I simply advocate giving the people the right to own a firearm if they feel it necessary to defend themselves with it. If you'd rather rely on the police, so be it. More power to you. Give the cops a job to do rather than harrassing others for no reason. Justify their job--that's what they're there for and I hope they do their job well. I'm just saying, I'd rather the personal feeling of added security that is given by owning a firearm.

You assume that every single adult and evey single gun owner is a responsible, mentally stable, intelligent and responsible individual. I know they're not. If they were, I think I might even agree with a right to gun ownership. Seeing as they are not, I perceive every single person who owns a gun as a potential threat to others.
Sure, there are people who responsibly own them and never hurt anyone with them.... but a single irresponsible low-life who gets a thrill out of showing off his new gun to his mates and leaves it around for the kids to get their hands on it is one too many in my eyes.

The Second Amendment is as clear as day and the Founders' intentions were just as clear when they wrote it.
Yeah... I guess that's you never see any debate on what the second amendment actually means among legal scholars and the likes :rolleyes:

No, more argument is that a criminal--even armed--is far more likely to backoff from attacking you if he realizes you're armed. Stats back me up on this--criminals have a higher tendancy to flee when confronted with a gun than they are to stick around and duke it out. A crook goes after what they percieve to be a weaker person. If that weaker person just so happens to be carrying, then the crook is likely to back down. Or get shot. I'd hope for both, but that makes me mean.

If someone approaches you with a gun (and you're packing), the answer is fairly simple in my opinion. Draw yours and, if necessary, fire. I hope, for your sake, you don't miss.

:eek: Are you fucking kidding?? You would go for your gun when someone is pointing a gun at you?? And you're actually advocating this? Whoa, that's scary... You would actually prefer to be shot rather than mugged.

Strange? Perhaps. Again, judge for yourself, though I'm sure you've long ago made up your mind strongly against the private ownership of firearms.
Just out of curriosity, how do you explain Japan then?

Or is it also just a quirk?

Cool. I'd like a transport system, but it doesn't have to be public. Again, less government. Contrary to belief, the private sector isn't the source of all evil that some believe it to be.


I think that most europeans - as myself - use the term "public" as in "this is open to the public, anyone can use it provided they pay the ticket". This doesn't necessarily mean "state-run". A private bus company (like european "Eurolines") offers a "public" service - you just buy the ticket and step in.

1.Any person tends to hate things that inspire fear to them, even if he's the utmost coward. And people usually act against what they hate.

If someone comes after you, and you have means of stopping him without killing him, and you still kill him, yes, this makes you an evil person.

YES! I've finally been called "evil" (if indirectly) on a forum. Finally, my dream has been fulfilled.

Seriously, I would be unlikely to kill someone if I had the means of otherwise saving him for the justice system. However, make no distinction: I feel no sympathy for a criminal that is killed while violating the rights of someone else. Self-defense is paramount.

Self-defence is not necessarily "kill". It is "prevent being wronged/hurt/killed", and it should be done with minimal injury to the aggressor.

I agree. I was mostly kidding, if you hadn't got the point by now.


2.Ok there are a lot of car wrecks. The difference is that a car is a tool intended to carry people and things around, and occasionally there is an accident and people die - but that's not the standard USE of that tool. A weapon is a tool designed to kill, so no wonder people get killed by weapons as it is the use the tool was designed for. Moreover, without vehicles it is difficult to move, and without weapons it is difficult to kill. Moving is ok, killing is ethically questionable.

I wasn't intending to insinuate that a car was intentionally designed to kill something (which a gun is, for all intents and purposes, designed to do). But to say "ocassionally" is a bit of a stretch.

43,443 were killed in the "occasional" motor vehicle accidents in 2005.

And yes, I trust my wits up to the point I can say that a car is less directly threatening to human life than a gun. Else policemen would brandish their cars when arresting a criminal.

I agree. I wasn't saying otherwise and you've taken my words almost entirely out of context. Kindly go back and re-read what was wrote.


4.There you go again. You previously stated that if you want to inflict harm, you'd use a gun. So would your aggressor - and he would have a READY gun.


Again, I state: the armed attacker with his ready gun is unlikely to attack me when he notices that I, too, have a firearm.


5.Same goes for the average thug. Passive, safe measures like living in a REAL home, made of bricks and concrete (not a wooden cabin!), a steel door and proper locks will keep the crowbar guy out of your home, without resorting to dangerous tools like weapons. Why excalate threat level when you can lower it?[/quote[

A wooden cabin? :confused: Where did you get that from? =|

Anyhow, yes, I agree. Again, I'm not saying everyone should just blast away. I'm advocating the right to own a gun to protect themselves, if necessary.

[quote]
6.This confirms that some changes must be done in the "law and order" policies of your area. Also crime prevention is not just for police. The whole society has to build a system, that includes measures to rehabilitate criminals and wrongdoers, eradicate poverty as it is the most fertile ground for low-level crime, etc.

On a different note, rehabilitation doesn't work as well as we'd like it to. Some people can't be retrained. I agree that society has to build a system geared against crime, but that shouldn't include the prohibition of private gun ownership, as they are a strong deterrant to crime.

How is it alien? You keep ranting on how irresponsible it is of Europeans not to want to own guns. Yet the legislation on gun ownership has a strong support in the public opinion all over the continent. These laws are built on the will of the people here, yet you try to tell them they should change them?

I didn't say it was irresponsible, I said it was ignorant. Europeans, as a whole, favor more government involvement in their lives. Hey, if that's what they want, I'm not anyone to say no to them. If that's the will of the people, go for it. I am personally against more government. That's all. Me. Colerica. Against big goverment.

The end.

*does a backflip*

Just out of curriosity, how do you explain Japan then?

Or is it also just a quirk?

Forgive my ignorance on the subject of Japan. I kindly seek enlightenment on it from you.

Yeah... I guess that's you never see any debate on what the second amendment actually means among legal scholars and the likes :rolleyes:

Who has a better say on the intentions of the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment--the Founders themselves, or modern-aged law scholars looking at it, often with an agenda of their own?


:eek: Are you fucking kidding?? You would go for your gun when someone is pointing a gun at you?? And you're actually advocating this? Whoa, that's scary... You would actually prefer to be shot rather than mugged.

If necessary, yes. I'm sorry if I prefer the feeling of being able to protect myself if at all possible. I guess it greatly depends on the situation.

Both Germany and the UK tried that... private mass transport systems are not viable.

I'd still rather see a free-market, private-ran public system than anything the gov't can introduce.



You assume that every single adult and evey single gun owner is a responsible, mentally stable, intelligent and responsible individual. I know they're not. If they were, I think I might even agree with a right to gun ownership. Seeing as they are not, I perceive every single person who owns a gun as a potential threat to others.

Sure, there are people who responsibly own them and never hurt anyone with them.... but a single irresponsible low-life who gets a thrill out of showing off his new gun to his mates and leaves it around for the kids to get their hands on it is one too many in my eyes.

So the 200 million responsible, law abiding gun owners in this nation have less sway and say in the laws directly governing them than the law-breaking minority? I guess I have more faith in humanity and the responsibility of people than you do.

I am not a threat to any one because I own guns. I am not a threat to them unless they directly threaten me, my family, or my property. Then I might be provoked into becoming a threat to them in order to defend myself. That doesn't make me a bad person, does it?

Guns are just a scapegoat for crime. The government knows they can't solve crime itself so they have to find different targets, guns among them. If they eliminate firearms from the public, they percieve that they are helping the problem. Why don't they pursue bigger issues that have a bearing on crime, such as poverty? Instead of harrassing me and the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners.

Who has a better say on the intentions of the Founding Fathers about the Second Amendment--the Founders themselves, or modern-aged law scholars looking at it, often with an agenda of their own.
You have to interpret their writings to deduce their intentions, as you're presently doing (just like the law scholars do). To say that it is clear as day is not correct, as evident by the ongoing debates on the subject.


If necessary, yes. I'm sorry if I prefer the feeling of being able to protect myself if at all possible. I guess it greatly depends on the situation.

Dude, drawing a gun against someone who's pointing a gun at you is not protecting yourself in most cases, it's placing you in harms way. :(

I'd still rather see a free, private-ran public system than anything the gov't can introduce.


Free and private ran? How does that work?

You have to interpret their writings to deduce their intentions, as you're presently doing (just like the law scholars do). To say that it is clear as day is not correct, as evident by the ongoing debates on the subject.

It becomes rather "clear as day" after reading over their writings and interpreting their intentions.


Dude, drawing a gun against someone who's pointing a gun at you is not protecting yourself in most cases, it's placing you in harms way. :(

So be it? I guess..I don't have a reply to that. I may be far too tired to continue this debate (which I'm thrilled has remained civil throughout) and I may even regret saying that if I'm in a more...awake..condition. However, concealed handgun permits have been and continue to show that civillians carrying guns in the public have a definitely notable impact on crime and crime prevention. Again, the mere sight of a firearm is often a deterrant to armed criminals. Is that going to stop every loon with a gun from blasting you? No.

So I will revise my position here, okay?

If I'm confronted by a person with a drawn gun, demanding my wallet and I'm carrying, I will definitely be tempted to draw my gun when given the opportunity to defend myself. It is dependant on the situation.

Free and private ran? How does that work?

Free-market. Sorry, missed a word.

Free and private ran? How does that work?

He means free from the government.

Which has failed a number of times in countries with extensive public transport systems resulting in the government being forced to bail out the companies.

He means free from the government.

Which has failed a number of times in countries with extensive public transport systems resulting in the government being forced to bail out the companies.

I will admit: I'm not familiar with such cases, but I'll take your word for it. If that's the case, I have confidence that a private transportation company could survive.

But, then again, people like driving their cars. It's a bit of a problem.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject of Japan. I kindly seek enlightenment on it from you.
Well, for example, Japan usually reportes less that 200 instances of gun violence for the whole of the country, of those, only 5% end in death. Japan's rate of deaths due to guns is 0.5 per 1,000 people.

The crime rate is increasing, but the whole of the nation reports less crime and less violent crime than most US states (and a few US cities).

It's violent death count is higher than the US, but this is due to Japan counting suicides with it's rate while the US does not.

So I will revise my position here, okay?

If I'm confronted by a person with a drawn gun, demanding my wallet and I'm carrying, I will definitely be tempted to draw my gun when given the opportunity to defend myself. It is dependant on the situation.

How quickly could you draw your gun? Faster than they can pull the trigger of theirs?

Well, for example, Japan usually reportes less that 200 instances of gun violence for the whole of the country, of those, only 5% end in death. Japan's rate of deaths due to guns is 0.5 per 1,000 people.

The crime rate is increasing, but the whole of the nation reports less crime and less violent crime than most US states (and a few US cities).

It's violent death count is higher than the US, but this is due to Japan counting suicides with it's rate while the US does not.

Conditions may be different. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about Japan, but I could say that America glorifies violence. We always have. Is that the same in Japan? Again, I don't know. But I do believe the constant glorification of violence--so much to the point that people care more about the "evils" of pornography than gory, graphic scenes--has a correlation to the amount of violence in the nation. Violence is as American as apple pie, as it's been said.

How quickly could you draw your gun? Faster than they can pull the trigger of theirs?

Are they going to shoot if I draw mine? Honestly, can you tell me that? Again, the stats are behind me with this: an armed criminal is less likely to attack you if you are armed.

And, again, I said that I'd draw it (depending on the situation) at an point of opportunity. If that means shooting the bugger when he has his back to me, then so be it.

Are they going to shoot if I draw mine? Honestly, can you tell me that? Again, the stats are behind me with this: an armed criminal is less likely to attack you if you are armed.

And, again, I said that I'd draw it (depending on the situation) at an point of opportunity. If that means shooting the bugger when he has his back to me, then so be it.

Are they more likely to shoot you for no reason or because you've provoked them with an aggressive move?

Are they going to shoot if I draw mine? Honestly, can you tell me that? Again, the stats are behind me with this: an armed criminal is less likely to attack you if you are armed.

And, again, I said that I'd draw it (depending on the situation) at an point of opportunity. If that means shooting the bugger when he has his back to me, then so be it.

If you have a gun pointed at an as yet unarmed attempted mugger and they go to draw a gun, will you recognising your life is in danger give up your advantage and run or shot him before he can point it at you?

Are they more likely to shoot you for no reason or because you've provoked them with an aggressive move?

Unable to answer. That's on a situational basis. Again, and I'm sick of sounding like a record here, but they're more likely to back down and flee when they realize that the person their victimizing is actually armed. Whether or not having a gun is provoking them to shoot you is an evasive fact. If you can find something to state that, I'd like to see it.

If you have a gun pointed at an as yet unarmed attempted mugger and they go to draw a gun, will you recognising your life is in danger give up your advantage and run or shot him before he can point it at you?

Shoot him before he can level his weapon because, for those few moments, I have the advantage and I'm going to exploit it. I'm unlikely to run when I have the gun drawn against someone who's confronting me. I wouldn't shoot him if I didn't have to, though.

Running away, on the other hand, lands me a liklihood of taking a bullet to the back. No thank you.

And even if I drew a gun on someone who's menacing me with one, I'd personally rather get shot then let myself be victimized. I'm of the mentality that if you're going to drown, at least die knowing you were headed towards shore.

Keep this stat in mind: 92% of all defensive uses of guns result in nobody being injured. Ninety-two percent!

my favourite gun statistic

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

Conditions may be different. I'm not going to pretend to know anything about Japan, but I could say that America glorifies violence. We always have. Is that the same in Japan? Again, I don't know. But I do believe the constant glorification of violence--so much to the point that people care more about the "evils" of pornography than gory, graphic scenes--has a correlation to the amount of violence in the nation. Violence is as American as apple pie, as it's been said.
Try watching Japanese TV, movies, or anime sometime. They are just as gory and violent as their US counterparts.

Japan has one of, if not the, lowest crime rates in the developed world. It has the lowest rate of deaths due to guns in the devloped world, and it is next to impossible to own a gun here.

Could be a relationship there, maybe?

Shoot him before he can level his weapon because, for those few moments, I have the advantage and I'm going to exploit it. I'm unlikely to run when I have the gun drawn against someone who's confronting me. I wouldn't shoot him if I didn't have to, though.


So why would the robber choose the exact opposite if they had the gun pointed at you and they saw their life rapidly becoming endangered?

Try watching Japanese TV, movies, or anime sometime. They are just as gory and violent as their US counterparts.

Japan has one of, if not the, lowest crime rates in the developed world. It has the lowest rate of deaths due to guns in the devloped world, and it is next to impossible to own a gun here.

Could be a relationship there, maybe?

Again, I feel at a loss for comment here without knowing more on my own and that's a bad thing because it *does* put me at a loss. Apparently, I'm to do research on Japan's gun crime. How prevasive is the police force there? The poverty rate? There are more things contributing to violent crime than guns.

So why would the robber choose the exact opposite if they had the gun pointed at you and they saw their life rapidly becoming endangered?

Because he's looking for an easy attack; he's rarely expecting a person to be packing heat or else he wouldn't be confronting people. Fight or flight takes hold and they choose flight more often than not.

Unable to answer. That's on a situational basis. Again, and I'm sick of sounding like a record here, but they're more likely to back down and flee when they realize that the person their victimizing is actually armed. Whether or not having a gun is provoking them to shoot you is an evasive fact. If you can find something to state that, I'd like to see it.

Ohhh ohhh well what about if you like wherte walking through a park and somebody jumped out on you armed with a knife and said gizus all ya money(or similar) and then you like pulled out your gun, and he said you call that a gun, and pulled out a bigger one? Then what would you do huh huh??

Ohhh ohhh well what about if you like wherte walking through a park and somebody jumped out on you armed with a knife and said gizus all ya money(or similar) and then you like pulled out your gun, and he said you call that a gun, and pulled out a bigger one? Then what would you do huh huh??

Umm... pull out a lightsaber and cut him in half? :p

I'm telling you all: the true solution here (save for being him) is to throw up the Bat signal.

Keep this stat in mind: 92% of all defensive uses of guns result in nobody being injured. Ninety-two percent!

You know, the really scary bit about that is, given that the USA has the highest rate of death by guns in the developed world, the figure of encounters involving guns overall must just be mindblowing.... :(

You say you want the liberty to use guns when threatened. I say I prefer the liberty to feel safe almost anywhere even without a gun.

Again, I feel at a loss for comment here without knowing more on my own and that's a bad thing because it *does* put me at a loss. Apparently, I'm to do research on Japan's gun crime. How prevasive is the police force there? The poverty rate? There are more things contributing to violent crime than guns.
The police force is very, it also has a 98% catch and conviction rate (make of that what you will). However, there are less police per capita than the US. As for the poverty rate, about 11%, but that figure is more than a bit odd.

And actually I do agree there is far more to crimes and gun deaths than just having guns, however I also feel that when the stats are pulled out about how guns keep you safer, Japan throws a large monkey wrench into things.

The police force is very, it also has a 98% catch and conviction rate (make of that what you will). However, there are less police per capita than the US. As for the poverty rate, about 11%, but that figure is more than a bit odd.

And actually I do agree there is far more to crimes and gun deaths than just having guns, however I also feel that when the stats are pulled out about how guns keep you safer, Japan throws a large monkey wrench into things.

And Switzerland appears to throw a wrench into the idea that no guns keep you safer, so it's a bit of a stand-off here.

Fortunately for me, but not for this thread, I'm going to bed. Or I'm going to try to, at least. It's 8am and I'm long overdue for some sleep.

G'night, all.

I don't do anything to protect my home or my family most of the time. Primarily because I don't live at home 5 days a week.

I protect my family by not living in a country where any idiot can get a gun and give it to their children.

Yeah, me neither. ;)

And Switzerland appears to throw a wrench into the idea that no guns keep you safer, so it's a bit of a stand-off here.

Fortunately for me, but not for this thread, I'm going to bed. Or I'm going to try to, at least. It's 8am and I'm long overdue for some sleep.

G'night, all.
You, sleep, now. :p

The thread will be here, with all of us loons still arguing it I'm sure.

And Switzerland appears to throw a wrench into the idea that no guns keep you safer, so it's a bit of a stand-off here.


I know you're off to bed, and judging by your other thread it looks like you really need a good nights sleep :)

But as has been pointed out - The Swiss have a very regulated gun ownership where it is illegal to use the guns outside of training and in the case of invasion. They have to account for every bullet and before being given their gun they must do military service, where they hopefully learn about responsible gun ownership.

All these very important factors in gun ownership play a larger part to play in keeping the population safe from gun crime than the fact they all own guns.

I think one of the things I find most difficult to come to terms with is the idea that its all right to shoot someone for trying to steal $100 from you, and yes I watched your little video. Did you watch the part about no one having a right to take someone elses life.
I mean the whole idea of shooting someone dead because they are trying to steal money from you is ridiculous. If you mail order a phone for $100 and it doesn't arrive is it ok to just pop around to their place and pop a cap in their ass?? I mean they deprived you of $100.. apparently it was all right to pop them one if they are standing in front of you when they take your money.. why not when they do it behind your back?
The penalties for blue collar crime compared to white collar crime are totally out of whack as it is. Some guy can steal $100s of thousands of dollars through corporate crime and get 3 or 4 years in prison... about the same as someone would receive for stealing a video player worth $50.
Do we really need to add in the fact that its just fine and dandy to shoot them too... its just stuff..
Yes its bad that they try to take it.. and its even worse if they don't get caught for it.. but the idea that its OK to kill them for it is just way over the top.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?
I keep my home safe by owning essentially nothing of value. Why break in to steal a 10-year-old 14-inch TV?

I keep my home safe by owning essentially nothing of value. Why break in to steal a 10-year-old 14-inch TV?

This makes much sense, though I do know someone who really really wants an old TV so he can play his sega megadrive.

The penalties for blue collar crime compared to white collar crime are totally out of whack as it is. Some guy can steal $100s of thousands of dollars through corporate crime and get 3 or 4 years in prison... about the same as someone would receive for stealing a video player worth $50.


Why should the value really matter? The act itself warrants the punishment not the ambition involved in it

It's pretty quiet in my neighbor hood. I have neighbors that are usually up during the night. I figure they keep burglers out. But I do have a bat. No body is badass when they have someone breaking their arms while you are swinging. I also have a 4 inch knife under my bed.

I Do you want the government to appoint someone to wipe your ass for you? Honestly, is there a cut-off point to the level of private invasion the government should do?

that would be cool, but i dont see a point to it. anything that other people do that effects me to some an extent, i want laws on.

Why should the value really matter? The act itself warrants the punishment not the ambition involved in it

Then why are mass murder and genocide separate crimes from murder. If the value of what you steal is irrelevant then why should the number of lives you take be relevant?

I keep my home safe by owning essentially nothing of value. Why break in to steal a 10-year-old 14-inch TV?

They won't know until they are in your house. They might be pissed when they find nothing of value also...

Then why are mass murder and genocide separate crimes from murder. If the value of what you steal is irrelevant then why should the number of lives you take be relevant?

My point exactly. They shouldnt be seperate crimes. They should all face the same punishment (but this is only my opinion)

No, I know you didn't make that up. I guess you've succeeded in confusing me about where you're getting at with parentalism. Could you clarify? It is, after all, 6:09am here and I'm running solely on caffeine and nicotine.

like auotocracy, accept leader doing things for peoples gain, not thier own.

And Switzerland appears to throw a wrench into the idea that no guns keep you safer, so it's a bit of a stand-off here.

Fortunately for me, but not for this thread, I'm going to bed. Or I'm going to try to, at least. It's 8am and I'm long overdue for some sleep.

G'night, all.

As pointed out before, while the Swiss do have guns, they are not allowed to use them.

Why should the value really matter? The act itself warrants the punishment not the ambition involved in it
So it makes no difference if you steal $10 from someone or their life savings... of course the amount should matter.

Killing 1 person is bad.... is it as bad as killin 1000?

Should someone get the same punishment for stealing 1 car as stealing 100?

Size matters..

EDIT: Yeah what Ifreann said......

They won't know until they are in your house. They might be pissed when they find nothing of value also...
That's what windows are for.
My point exactly. They shouldnt be seperate crimes. They should all face the same punishment (but this is only my opinion)

Interesting.

That's what windows are for.


Interesting.

Unless your house is made entirely of glass. Not everything is visible in your windows. But... It is your house.

I will quit arguing.

Both Germany and the UK tried that... private mass transport systems are not viable.

not going to try argue with or change subjetc, but i think the public transport system in london is amazing. buses everywhere.

So it makes no difference if you steal $10 from someone or their life savings... of course the amount should matter.

Killing 1 person is bad.... is it as bad as killin 1000?

Should someone get the same punishment for stealing 1 car as stealing 100?

Size matters..

EDIT: Yeah what Ifreann said......

Yes and yes because you're showing the willingness to carry out those acts. Its the willingness I focus on rather than the magnitude

They won't know until they are in your house. They might be pissed when they find nothing of value also...
Fortunately, I'm also a very clumsy person, which means I'm already pretty well covered in bruises and abbrasions. Why bother to beat me up, when I've done the work for you?

:D

I didn't say it was irresponsible, I said it was ignorant. Europeans, as a whole, favor more government involvement in their lives. Hey, if that's what they want, I'm not anyone to say no to them. If that's the will of the people, go for it. I am personally against more government. That's all. Me. Colerica. Against big goverment.

The end.

*does a backflip*

ah ha ha ha ha.

a yank accusing europe of having more government involvement? i dont see my country abducting people for torture.

I feel no sympathy for a criminal that is killed while violating the rights of someone else.
I think its this kind of attitude that is largly responsible for the difference in murder rates... where peoples stuff is more important than the people themselves.

There used to be a term used for that situation... I believe it was listed in the vid too.. slavery.

Melodramatic I know, but the attitude that money is worth more than people is effectively what slavery is all about...

If human life ain't worth that much then you are bound to have higher murder rates.

not going to try argue with or change subjetc, but i think the public transport system in london is amazing. buses everywhere.

Is that privately owned? Without subventions? And is it profitable?

What I had in mind was the privatised railroads in both countries... the UK with several companies owning parts of the railroad network and services, and Germany with one private company owning it all. Yes, there are trains, but the company in Germany is in dire straits financially, and trying to get a connection between two places in the UK can be a bit of a nightmare, afair

stealing isnt wrong, its just an inconvenience.

Yes and yes because you're showing the willingness to carry out those acts. Its the willingness I focus on rather than the magnitude

RE: The theft issue if a bit different. The act of stealing someones wallet will not have the same effect on a persons life as the act of stealing their life saving. I would say they are different acts, and would think/hope the law would rewcognise that.

Likewise - speeding - I would hope the law recognises the difference between going 1mph over the limit and 50mph over the limit.

Or the difference between someone slapping someone in the face and someone beating someone so hard that they break every bone in their face and knock out all their teeth.

You have to recognise the differences in severity of crimes.

Murder is a bit different, but personally I'm an advocate for the death penalty if the proof is overwealming that they are guilty. So like... fry them twice? I think the once is enough.

One thing I do agree with you on is the 'intent' aspect. I see NO reason why an attempted crime should be punished any less harshly than if the crime had been carried out. A criminal should not be rewarded because their itended victim was stronger than they thought.

Melodramatic I know, but the attitude that money is worth more than people is effectively what slavery is all about...

If human life ain't worth that much then you are bound to have higher murder rates.
Depends on the human in question, I think.

For instance, the life of a child rapist is worth less than a penny to me. I value my dirty laundry more than the life of a man who beats his wife and children.

I believe that humans, like all else in the world, can be evaluated based on their individual characteristics. Some human lives have greater value to me than others.

For instance, the life of a child rapist is worth less than a penny to me. I value my dirty laundry more than the life of a man who beats his wife and children.


That's because you're looking at it the wrong way.

If you executed them and allowed people to bid at auction to be the one to flip turn on the juice I think you would get a decent price.

RE: The theft issue if a bit different. The act of stealing someones wallet will not have the same effect on a persons life as the act of stealing their life saving. I would say they are different acts, and would think/hope the law would rewcognise that.

But in this case the theft is not carried out in order to hurt someone. The willingness is to take from others not to cause them harm.

Likewise - speeding - I would hope the law recognises the difference between going 1mph over the limit and 50mph over the limit.

I'd raise your example from 1 mph as this can be accounted for by normal human error. If it were significant enough however to be purposeful I dont see why they should be punished differently

Or the difference between someone slapping someone in the face and someone beating someone so hard that they break every bone in their face and knock out all their teeth.

There are differences (in my opinion anyway) in the intent of both of these acts however. A slap is not intended to cause the same amount of damage as your other example.


Murder is a bit different, but personally I'm an advocate for the death penalty if the proof is overwealming that they are guilty. So like... fry them twice? I think the once is enough.

One thing I do agree with you on is the 'intent' aspect. I see NO reason why an attempted crime should be punished any less harshly than if the crime had been carried out. A criminal should not be rewarded because their itended victim was stronger than they thought.

Agreed

I try not to piss people off.

My house is always locked and secure.

My husband is big and scary.

I have a bat'leth and I know how to use it.

(not that my dog would let anyone get anywhere near my house anyway....)

That's because you're looking at it the wrong way.

If you executed them and allowed people to bid at auction to be the one to flip turn on the juice I think you would get a decent price.

I have 5$.

That's because you're looking at it the wrong way.

If you executed them and allowed people to bid at auction to be the one to flip turn on the juice I think you would get a decent price.
That speaks to the value of their DEATH, not their life. :D

Trust me, this guy was making threatening gester such as shaking hand out the window, yelling, throwing stuff and showing off the middle finger. "Tough guy" wanted a fight, well my friend gave it to him.

If someone was following me like that the last place I would go was to my own house. In fact the last time someone was following me like that I drove and they followed me right to the police station.....and then got out of their truck and started cussing and threatening me right in front of about 30 police officers....it didn't end well for them.

1. I protect myself by being smarter than the idiot who pulled a gun on me.
2. I protect my family by being able and willing to get in the way. "Over my dead body" is not rhetorical.
3. Home & stuff. I like large dogs. The type that will eat people without chewing. alarm systems are nice too, but stuff is just stuff... I scan and back up all my pictures to other places


That said, if they're gonna try, they better have a gun because if all they have is a knife they're going to find out I'm prepared to be exponentially more violent than they are (I love martial arts).

As far as the government. Governments are created by the people. Not to be too philosophical but the form of Government is laws and the substance, is rights and resources. For a government to legitimately take a right from the people, it must prove it will provide a greater benefit than it takes. For the economically minded, there must be a profit of some kind. This is not just self defense this is anything. Even taxes. For the government to remove the peoples right to the buying power they receive in exchange for their labor, the government must provide services for the people greater than the value of that buying capacity.

The government should not remove my right to do something, to do it for my slower and worse than I can do it myself.

I feel really sorry for those of you who live in countries where you feel you need a gun in order to be safe. That's seriously messed up. In my country, people haven't got guns, nor do we need them. And I feel perfectly safe at home and outdoors.


I have a bat'leth and I know how to use it.


You can buy a bat'leth? :eek:

If someone was following me like that the last place I would go was to my own house. In fact the last time someone was following me like that I drove and they followed me right to the police station.....and then got out of their truck and started cussing and threatening me right in front of about 30 police officers....it didn't end well for them.

Hehe... Smart.

You can buy a bat'leth? :eek:

I have 3, one for decoration, one practice bat'leth, and one that is sharpened.

although the 2 that are dull are just about heavy enough that with a good swing I could decapitate most anyone anyway.

It's not really a weapon you should try to rely on if you don't know how to use it though, you really can hurt yourself badly if you are stupid with one.

I have 3, one for decoration, one practice bat'leth, and one that is sharpened.

although the 2 that are dull are just about heavy enough that with a good swing I could decapitate most anyone anyway.

It's not really a weapon you should try to rely on if you don't know how to use it though, you really can hurt yourself badly if you are stupid with one.

Even a dull sword or wall-hanger makes for a good blunt object if need be.

*BTW, every bat'leth I've handled have been very heavy. They look cool, but I'll stick with my short swords.*

I have 3, one for decoration, one practice bat'leth, and one that is sharpened.

although the 2 that are dull are just about heavy enough that with a good swing I could decapitate most anyone anyway.

It's not really a weapon you should try to rely on if you don't know how to use it though, you really can hurt yourself badly if you are stupid with one.

Bl**dy h*ll. I had no idea you could buy a bat'leth. How much do they cost?

I assume you're self-taught, or did you attend bat'leth classes? :D

12guage and and a 9mm. Please dont break into my home because theres a good chance it would be the last thing you do in this world and I dont want to hurt any NSGers:D I love you all:fluffle:

How do I protect:

Home and Stuff: I don't. It's just stuff. I keep batteries in the smoke detector, but that's to protect me, not the stuff.

Family: They can take care of themselves. We can all take care of ourselves. We all grew up in NYC, five generations, and many of my ancestors were petty crooks themselves. None of us needs to be protected by anyone.

Self: Outside -- I pay attention. I see trouble coming, and I avoid it. They can't hurt what they can't hit. At home -- smoke detector.

I don't have any children to protect, but if I did, I'd do it the same way my family protected me -- by teaching them to pay attention and recognize danger and avoid it, and make critical judgments about weighing risks and what's worth worrying about and what isn't.

I lock the doors at night and when I'm out. That's about it. I also live in a relatively quiet neighbourhood with hardly any crime.
So no need for me to be paranoid about needing a gun. Not that it's legal to own one anyway.

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?

At home/family: My dad has a 12 gauge shotgun, I have a .22 semi automatic rifle. My dad is the first line of defense against a robber, and if anything should happen to him, I am to try to find a way out for me and my mom. Even if that means I have to shoot the guy myself. We also have an alarm system that even I can hear when I sleep (I have a hearing aid and turn it off at night). We also have a dog that barks at everything that comes up the driveway.

Myself: Right now I am using a pepper spray to protect myself, but I am also considering either a handgun or martial arts. I'll probably go with handguns since my left foot is paraylized and I doubt I can be very fast and agile on my feet. So that side of protection for myself is still being developed.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?
I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if someone has already mentioned this:

Does it occur to you that your friend would not have needed to "protect" himself if he had not led the road-rager to his house and then gotten out of his car to face him?

Why didn't he do what Smunkeeville did and lead the asshole to a police station? Or to some other public place with many witnesses? Or just drive around until the moron got bored and gave up?

It is stupid to confront an unknown enemy if you don't have to. Your friend had a gun. What if the other guy had one, too? There are lots of ways that confrontation could have gone. Your friend was more lucky than protected. And now that a potential enemy knows where he and his family live, he's going to need that luck. Instead of managing that risk, he just added a new one to his life.

.357 Magnum and an absolutely sordid collection of Knivery.

If the oppressor/threat is a government/well armed I have an AR-15 up-chambered to 7.62 NATO and about five parts that can make it rock and roll. (though, for legal reasons, these parts are not normally installed;) )

(A friend has reminded me that 'rock&roll' could also refer to pieces that are not entirely legit to simply own, let alone own+a gun capable of using said pieces. This is of course not at all what I meant )

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?



By not being stupid enough to go straight home when there is a person following me? Maybe go to the police department?

Common sense is plenty of protection.

Even a dull sword or wall-hanger makes for a good blunt object if need be.

*BTW, every bat'leth I've handled have been very heavy. They look cool, but I'll stick with my short swords.*
they are very heavy.. that's the truth. My husband has a collection of short swords but they are pretty much just pretty LOL
Bl**dy h*ll. I had no idea you could buy a bat'leth. How much do they cost?
My cheapest one was about $250 US, but they can go for as much as $3K more if they were actually used on Trek.

I assume you're self-taught, or did you attend bat'leth classes? :D
There is actually a class here, it's for exercise as they are very heavy, it's actually pretty good stretching/toning to use one.

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?

At home/family: My dad has a 12 gauge shotgun, I have a .22 semi automatic rifle. My dad is the first line of defense against a robber, and if anything should happen to him, I am to try to find a way out for me and my mom. Even if that means I have to shoot the guy myself. We also have an alarm system that even I can hear when I sleep (I have a hearing aid and turn it off at night). We also have a dog that barks at everything that comes up the driveway.

Myself: Right now I am using a pepper spray to protect myself, but I am also considering either a handgun or martial arts. I'll probably go with handguns since my left foot is paraylized and I doubt I can be very fast and agile on my feet. So that side of protection for myself is still being developed.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?

Although I didn't buy it for protection (I want to be able to punch little holes in paper from longer distances than I can reach with my arms, and for competitions), I do have an AR-15, 10 mags, and 200 rounds of 55 grain FMG that I could use.

Of course, if I can ever get some more things for it (hard sided gun case, eye and hearing protection, and a cleaning kit), I'll finally be able to go to the range with it (of course, then I'll have to buy more rounds for it, as the rounds I have are earmarked for sighting my AR-15 in).

protection... I have...

hmm...

swords, knives... no guns...

but a great relationship with Several members of SWAT, a neighbor who is a Sheriff...

they are very heavy.. that's the truth. My husband has a collection of short swords but they are pretty much just pretty LOL

My cheapest one was about $250 US, but they can go for as much as $3K more if they were actually used on Trek.


There is actually a class here, it's for exercise as they are very heavy, it's actually pretty good stretching/toning to use one.

??? I have the Star Trek:TOS battle music running though my head when I read this! :D

If someone was following me like that the last place I would go was to my own house. In fact the last time someone was following me like that I drove and they followed me right to the police station.....and then got out of their truck and started cussing and threatening me right in front of about 30 police officers....it didn't end well for them.
LOL... Road Rage decreases Intelligence!

I would do the same thing. head to the Police station and stop and park... let them make the next move.

LOL... Road Rage decreases Intelligence!

I would do the same thing. head to the Police station and stop and park... let them make the next move.

As I mentioned in a lonely post earlier in this thread, I did the exact same thing, except my followers were smart enough to quit following me before I got to the police station.

LOL... Road Rage decreases Intelligence!

I would do the same thing. head to the Police station and stop and park... let them make the next move.

IIRC, when I figured out that he wasn't going to quit following me, I called 911 and told them that I was coming up on the intersection just before the station and was on the phone with the dispatcher who was letting the police at that station know what was going on, and still on the phone with her in my car, I didn't even look at him while he was yelling at me, I just stared straight ahead at the door, and talked to her.

I think it probably pissed him off more that I was talking on my cell phone rather than looking at him make an ass of himself.

I have three locked doors. Simple, but effective...

There is actually a class here, it's for exercise as they are very heavy, it's actually pretty good stretching/toning to use one.

Damn, I was just joking when I asked... ;)

Hmm, about €200, eh? That's... about 1300 FF (yes, I still think in francs). Maybe I should consider getting one. One day. After saving up a bit.

Could you explain me the meaning of "shoot-first"? You get licence to shoot when you're threatened by an armed guy, or what? And if the guy is not armed? Or armed with a knife, or a club?

It is also called the "stand your ground" law, and it removes the duty to retreat when in your house or car. It basically shifts the burden of proof from you to the state in determining self defense.

Previously, if you shot an intruder you had to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in self defense, now, the state has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT in self defense.

I don't even lock the doors to my house.

I have figured out that my house is not protected at all..

The door that goes into the garage from the back yard, you can unlock it with anything..


*shrugs*

We now live in a gated community with armed security that actually patrols.
There is no crime here.

Aside from that, my house has automatic dusk to dawn motion sensitive flood lights on each corner. When they built the house, I had them reinforce all the door frames with extra wood, with and extra hinge-the hinges and strikeplates have longer screws holding them in and the doors are metal that looks like wood. Storm doors are shatter proof with deadbolts.
I have an alarm system that calls our security.

There are no strangers in here. Security is good and I know them all now.

You wouldnt want to be a threat to me or my family anyway.

I've got no family, but I've got a .38 spl which is next to my bed when I sleep and usually not very far from me when I'm awake, and several knives and blunt objects strewn around.

We now live in a gated community with armed security that actually patrols.
There is no crime here.

Aside from that, my house has automatic dusk to dawn motion sensitive flood lights on each corner. When they built the house, I had them reinforce all the door frames with extra wood, with and extra hinge-the hinges and strikeplates have longer screws holding them in and the doors are metal that looks like wood. Storm doors are shatter proof with deadbolts.
I have an alarm system that calls our security.

There are no strangers in here. Security is good and I know them all now.

You wouldnt want to be a threat to me or my family anyway.

Wow... you live in prison. :eek:

Damn, I was just joking when I asked... ;)

Hmm, about €200, eh? That's... about 1300 FF (yes, I still think in francs). Maybe I should consider getting one. One day. After saving up a bit.

they might be considered a weapon where you are... don't know the laws, but I would check that out before I put money down for one for sure.

Wow... you live in prison. :eek:

It'd suck to be his son when he's 17 and trying to sneak out to a party.. :p

We now live in a gated community with armed security that actually patrols.
There is no crime here.

Aside from that, my house has automatic dusk to dawn motion sensitive flood lights on each corner. When they built the house, I had them reinforce all the door frames with extra wood, with and extra hinge-the hinges and strikeplates have longer screws holding them in and the doors are metal that looks like wood. Storm doors are shatter proof with deadbolts.
I have an alarm system that calls our security.

There are no strangers in here. Security is good and I know them all now.

You wouldnt want to be a threat to me or my family anyway.


Maybe you should live in a cave with one big cement and steel blast door?

Can't be arsed going on about the probs with having a gun, so I just wanna say this:

My Dad had a rifle. Out of curiosity, I aimed it at myself, and shot. If there'd have been bullets in it, I could be dead right now. There was no way anyone could have known I was going to do it, as it wasn't because of sucidal thoughts or anything like that, it was purely out of curiosity - I wanted to see what would happen if I died.

Can't be arsed going on about the probs with having a gun, so I just wanna say this:

My Dad had a rifle. Out of curiosity, I aimed it at myself, and shot. If there'd have been bullets in it, I could be dead right now. There was no way anyone could have known I was going to do it, as it wasn't because of sucidal thoughts or anything like that, it was purely out of curiosity - I wanted to see what would happen if I died.

and that's why there isn't a gun in my house.

*not that I am anti-gun, I like guns, I like to shoot them, I don't see myself having any in my house until my kids are grown and at college (both at the same time, they may hit college before they are grown....LOL)

Can't be arsed going on about the probs with having a gun, so I just wanna say this:

My Dad had a rifle. Out of curiosity, I aimed it at myself, and shot. If there'd have been bullets in it, I could be dead right now. There was no way anyone could have known I was going to do it, as it wasn't because of sucidal thoughts or anything like that, it was purely out of curiosity - I wanted to see what would happen if I died.

You wanted to see what would happen if you died? You could have used a butcher knife to the heart. Seems like using the unloaded rifle saved your life. If I were you I'd be complaining about knives, not guns.

You wanted to see what would happen if you died? You could have used a butcher knife to the heart. Seems like using the unloaded rifle saved your life. If I were you I'd be complaining about knives, not guns.

thing is though, when I tried to hurt myself as a kid (eg by slapping myself), some mechanism prevented it. So trying to stab a knife in me would probably have just resulted in a little cut. Pulling a trigger, however, is very easy.

YES! I've finally been called "evil" (if indirectly) on a forum. Finally, my dream has been fulfilled.

Seriously, I would be unlikely to kill someone if I had the means of otherwise saving him for the justice system. However, make no distinction: I feel no sympathy for a criminal that is killed while violating the rights of someone else. Self-defense is paramount.

I wasn't intending to insinuate that a car was intentionally designed to kill something (which a gun is, for all intents and purposes, designed to do). But to say "ocassionally" is a bit of a stretch.

Again, I state: the armed attacker with his ready gun is unlikely to attack me when he notices that I, too, have a firearm.

A wooden cabin? :confused: Where did you get that from? =|

Anyhow, yes, I agree. Again, I'm not saying everyone should just blast away. I'm advocating the right to own a gun to protect themselves, if necessary.

On a different note, rehabilitation doesn't work as well as we'd like it to. Some people can't be retrained. I agree that society has to build a system geared against crime, but that shouldn't include the prohibition of private gun ownership, as they are a strong deterrant to crime.


Glad to hear you'd prefer to catch the criminal alive.

Ok for no sympathy for criminals. A case that actually happened here in Milan 1 year ago. A jewelry shop had its front glass smashed with a brick by two thieves who then proceeded to steal some valuable items. The owner and his son busted out of the shop, guns (not lawfully detained) blazing, and started firing at the criminals in the middle of the street. Note that the thieves were fleeing and were unarmed. I think this behaviour (aside from having unauthorized guns in a public shop) qualifies as manslaughter and posed a serious threat to the innocent bystanders, although the judges ruled it was only "excess of defence, serious wounding and unintentional killing". I think that killing a man in self-defence should be restricted to cases of direct threat to one's life.

As for cars, I said "occasionally" (note, I know my english is far from being perfect) because having a car kill a person is part of an accident, and not of intentional design of the object.

Again, I state, the armed aggressor is at advantage on you.

I quoted wooden cabins because I see in many TV programmes that a lot of americans live in wooden houses, so I guess they cannot feel totally safe from aggression while in their homes, as a bullet will easily pass through wood, but not through concrete.

Yea, I get you're not the trigger-happy type, and I would most likely entrust you a firearm. Yet not every person can be trusted to own and use responsibily a gun, and, IMO, given the threat a misused gun poses to society, introducing strong gun control (not total prohibition, ok) would lessen the paranoia level, and spare the lives of a lot of people, too.

And if a person cannot be rehabilitated, having the state to put him in jail for life is more effective than waiting for a private gun-owner to shoot him dead, I think.

It is also called the "stand your ground" law, and it removes the duty to retreat when in your house or car. It basically shifts the burden of proof from you to the state in determining self defense.

Previously, if you shot an intruder you had to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in self defense, now, the state has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT in self defense.

Ok. Thank you for explaining.
(Still I think this law will create a lot of unjustified uses of firearms)

A Machete and a well-made fencing Rapier is the best I have. I'm not a big fan of guns, and niether is my family.

I shoot the people who want to harm me or my family. My home ...take it its not worth dying for ..or killing for AND thats what the cops get paid for ..but threaten me or my family and I will use a full magazine on your head .
And I have enough to last for a while and insurance that pays for the clean up , that I bought the last time I had to shoot someone in my home..its very expensive because of the biohazard crap from blood and other fluids .


Lessons learned from that experiance for those who give a shit.


Make sure your dog BARKS and doesnt let them get in and then attack..if you love your dog..mine got shot dead .

Gut shot people STINK bad ..and dead ones stink worse..even after the medical examiner takes them away .

It takes about a week to get everything back to almost livable ..the cleanup is no joke expensive.
BUY insurance or add it to your homeowners...

Buy a shot gun and use number 4 shot ..I used a hangun ( .45 Glock ) with + p hollowpoints and the dudes brains were all over the place the other ones internal organs were comming out of the exit wounds in his back .

Be prepared to move into a hotel for at least two weeks .( the smell and the memory of it is NO JOKE ).

Immediately hire a lawyer and say nothing to anyone until he is with you .

I have some rifles in my house, but they are not for protection. They are for hunting and target practice, which makes them a tool and not a weapon. I find that pistols have little use beyond killing people (yes, I know that some people hunt with pistols, but I can't think of a single animal that would be better hunted with a pistol than with a rifle). That, of course, make them a weapon. I could use one of my rifles to protect myself against an intruder in my home, but I find it more likely that the person will run away when he/she realizes that I am home, or the person already has a gun out and is more than willing to kill me (in which case I would leave my rifles where they are and let the person take my stuff, grabbing my gun would only provoke him/her and he/she already has a gun out). I also have some tomahawks, daggers, and swords, but if the person has a gun I don't think they would be of much use. If I had a family, things would change a bit. If the person entered brandishing a gun, and I was not in the room when he entered (I am assuming that someone would scream when he/she entered with said gun), I would be grabbing a rifle as quickly as possible and would get prepared to use it should the person present a clear opportunity that would not endanger my family further. That said, I do not live in an area where crimes of that type are common. I do have the problem of the police being too far away to be of any use should I need them, but that's because I live in a rural area far from any city. In short, I suppose that my protection is living in a relatively safe area and keeping my doors locked. I have guns, but that is not what they are for.

I live in a city of only 8,000. But yet my house has been broken into and robbed at least 5 times, with at least 1,000$ taken. Yet the open garage that is full of equipment, bikes, TV's, radios, cd players, is never robbed. Anyways, I have my .40 berreta hand gun, my 12 guage, my 7.62mm SKS, and my 30-06, sniper rifle. I have gotten these guns recently and haven't been attacked in my own home since having them but if I am I will gladly shoot to kill the mother fucker. I am not paranoid. I am logical. If I have a gun, and some jerk busts into my house to break, steal, harm, me, or anyone I live with. I will kill them, end of story. :headbang:

Simple 9mm Glock 17

How do I protect myself? Easy with a gun. I grew up in rural Arkansas so the police usually aren't quick enough to stop a robbery in progress. My dad used to have to go out and run the robbers off because they had the guts to come up into our drive way and steal the gas out of our cars while we were at home.

If you worried about your kids hurting themselves or someone else with a gun. .. . .congrats you suck as a parent! Either lock up the gun away from the child or teach them the proper respect and fear for firearms. I am the youngest of seven and I have several nephews and neices we all know not to touch a gun unless you know who to use it. The children never ever touch a gun without an adult present. My great parents taught me this. And they also taught me how to use it properly.

Maybe you should live in a cave with one big cement and steel blast door?

Why? I didnt describe anything unreasonable.

My house isnt a bunker, its just pretty safe. I also had builder use fire resistant sheet-rock and fire block caulking anywhere wires/pipes go through a wall or floor beam.

I have a portable alarm thing that's really loud by my bed, so that if anyone breaks into my room I can activate it so that someone will hear it. That's about it, but I'm just a kid. My parents don't have guns, though, either.

I live in a city of only 8,000. But yet my house has been broken into and robbed at least 5 times, with at least 1,000$ taken. Yet the open garage that is full of equipment, bikes, TV's, radios, cd players, is never robbed. Anyways, I have my .40 berreta hand gun, my 12 guage, my 7.62mm SKS, and my 30-06, sniper rifle. I have gotten these guns recently and haven't been attacked in my own home since having them but if I am I will gladly shoot to kill the mother fucker. I am not paranoid. I am logical. If I have a gun, and some jerk busts into my house to break, steal, harm, me, or anyone I live with. I will kill them, end of story. :headbang:

Why would you ever need a sniper rifle for self defence?

I live in an area of my city not infested with criminals and crack-whores, so I'm not at risk. Granted, I'm depriving myself of good crack-whores..

The Eagle jams like a mother and costed a fortune.

Amen! I have a .50AE Desert Eagle, and while quite intimidating, I was really disappointed as it seems that only an immaculately clean weapon and textbook perfect shooting technique ameliorate the incessant jamming. I figured the Israelis would make better weapons. I guess they buy all their really good shit from US. :D

I also have a .22 Ruger revolver, a .45 H&K Mk23, and a 9mm Glock 26. But the Ruger's big brother, my .454 Casull, is the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley. That's pretty much just for pig hunting, though. It's relatively worthless for general home defense since it will punch holes in multiple walls if you don't get lucky and hit a stud, and there is a risk of hitting someone you don't want to in another room. As such, for those few times I've felt the need to actually keep a gun outside of my safe and nearby while I was at home, the Glock and H&K have been my weapons of choice.

I also own various shotguns and rifles, but most of these are too high powered, too bulky or otherwise too impractical to be employed for home defense.

Why would you ever need a sniper rifle for self defence?

In case someone breaks into your house aaaalllll the way down the hall and you just can't get the kind of accuracy you need out of some .45.

My family doesn't have a gun and likes it quite well that way. In 17 years of living in the same house, we've had our car stolen once and that was it. There haven't been any break-ins in my neighborhood for some time now. I suppose I'm lucky.

If worst came to worst, I would simply find myself a weapon around the house-- dishes work well, or my knife if it's handy, or some of the old 2x4s full of rusty nails in the basement.;)

I live in the inner city, i protect my house with a device called a lock. It works wonders, never been burgled. It helps that my single room apartment faces out the back of the building into an enclosed inner yard.

Never understood the people who need guns to protect their houses, recent statistics about burglary in the netherlands (where i live) show that only about 4% of people are both at home and aware of the burglary as its in progress.

My dad used to have to go out and run the robbers off because they had the guts to come up into our drive way and steal the gas out of our cars while we were at home.

If you worried about your kids hurting themselves or someone else with a gun. .. . .congrats you suck as a parent!

And do you call stealing gas from a car "robbery" ? A robbery is different from theft. Usually a robbery is performed via a threat (like levelling a loaded gun).
By the same measure, unlawfully taking away an horse from a stable would be kidnapping...

A lot of gun owners suck as parents, as a lot of underage pop up with guns and cause serious or even deadly accidents.
Me - I don't own a gun and have no children. So I cannot suck as parent.:D

Why would you ever need a sniper rifle for self defence?

I guess G.W.Bush would call that "pre-emptive defence".;)

We've discussed getting a gun in case an intruder breaks in. We just dont feel comfortable because we have two children. One is two years old and has no concept of fear. Sure we could lock the gun and ammo up, but if someone breaks in, you have seconds to react and by the time you get the safe open, gun loaded and get your wits about you.....might be too late. Some people have a loaded gun in their nightstand drawer and could easily grab it in time,but that's not an option with a small child around.

Every week on the news, we hear about a home invasion. One guy broke in and killed an elderly couple, one broke in and killed a mother and child and then kidnapped the other child. It's scary. You want to protect your family, but with small children in the house, I'm not sure a gun is the best answer. We are leasing so we cant have an alarm system installed or even a watchdog. We lock up tight and I'm a light sleeper. I hear every little creak. I suppose if an intruder comes in, me and my husband will tag team him and hope we can hold him til the cops come. But if there's more than one........ugh.

I don't. no need to.

We lock up tight and I'm a light sleeper. I hear every little creak. I suppose if an intruder comes in, me and my husband will tag team him and hope we can hold him til the cops come. But if there's more than one........ugh.

*thinking of invading her home for the "tag-team" action*

I dont have any stuff i would die or kill over, i dont live with my family.
If someone intents me bodily harm i use whatever is around as a weapon. Once i held someone at bay until help arrived with a smashed bottle, one time i defended myself with a broom, i took out a guy trying to knife me with my training bo. Most other fights where fisticuffs, where a combination of training and luck saw me victor most off the times, while i prefer to run. At home i have several long blades, some sharp, some not (but still quite capable of breaking bones), since i do sword-fighting, as well as a horsemans-axe, daggers, a bo staff and whatnot, but i cant see myself charging a burglar with a sword over a 250 Euro PSII or even my beloved giant tv.

Since it's both illegal to have a gun and to kill/seriously injure a burglar over here, I'm just gonna have to let him run away with all my stuff. I suppose I could use a camera to get a pic of him so he gets caught after though, but that's not really a weapon. And also, he'd probably kill me for trying it.

How do you protect yourself, your family, your home?

Efficiently!

I'm a very non-violent person, and I am really uncomfortable with guns. But with all the insanity in this world I am seriously considering getting one, and learning to use it effectively. I would probably go with a handgun because hunting and sport shooting don't appeal to me very much.

The funny thing was that I used to be in favor of gun control, until a wise friend pointed out the fact that people with criminal intent can obtain firearms illegally, so banning guns disarms the law abiding, and empowers the the law defying.

"The prediction is that army will be against army: it may be that the [people] will have to beat their ploughs into swords, for it will not do for men to sit down patiently and see their children destroyed."

Since it's both illegal to have a gun and to kill/seriously injure a burglar over here, I'm just gonna have to let him run away with all my stuff. I suppose I could use a camera to get a pic of him so he gets caught after though, but that's not really a weapon. And also, he'd probably kill me for trying it.

You from England? It's only illegal to use more force than what is reasonable in the specific situation. If it's reasonable to seriously injure him/her, you can do that. As far as I'm aware, if it goes to court (you being accused of assault or whatever), it's a jury who decides, and of course they are just random members of the public who have almost certainly gone through no decent selection process.

With a security system, dead bolt locks (locking the doors and windows at night and so on) also with several hand guns, shot guns and rifles. If anyone did break into my home they would not leave without some holes in them.:sniper:

Well, I don't. That's cuz I live in a pretty good, crime-free neighbourhood in Markham, Ontario. We got some pot-growers in and around the area, but thats a completely different story.

We have a house alarm, but we never set it when we're out of the house or at night, we just feel that secure. All we do is lock the doors and thats about it.

And if your local police is so slow, I advise you to intervene in your local politics and request better, more present, more quick-responding police forces.

ussc has ruled there is no duty of the police to protect/intervene in a crime - they do what they can but in violent crimes like home invasion they normally just pick up the pieces

ymmv

And if your local police is so slow, I advise you to intervene in your local politics and request better, more present, more quick-responding police forces.

ussc has ruled there is no duty of the police to protect/intervene in a crime - they do what they can but in violent crimes like home invasion they normally just pick up the pieces

ymmv

then why the f*** are they being paid?!?!

I would not be able to shoot someone even if I were holding a gun, and would be immediately disarmed and shot with my own gun. Since I KNOW this, it makes no sense at all for me to consider carrying a gun.

So I carry a cellphone. I live in NYC, and if I call the police, they will come immediately. If I see someone trying to threaten me or hear someone breaking in, I call. Then I simply say "I have just called the police. You have approximately two minutes to get as far away as you can manage. If you're stupid enough to harm me before you run away, you can be guaranteed a considerably longer jail term and I am sure your new boyfriend will be very happy about that. One one thousand, two one thousand, you should be running, four one thousand..."

that didn't work for kitty genovese

probably won't for you either

then why the f*** are they being paid?!?!

to clean up after

800 Minuteman III missiles guarantee that if you find out where my undisclosed location is, you'll not be around to let word get out.

then why the f*** are they being paid?!?!

To pull over traffic :D

In another forum, one of my friends was threaten by a "tough guy" on the road, who followed him home, well this tough guy got out of his car, and so did my friend. Only my friend pulled out his handgun. When the tough guy saw the gun he went back to his car and ran off. That got me to thinking, what do people on here do to protect themselves, their family and homes?

At home/family: My dad has a 12 gauge shotgun, I have a .22 semi automatic rifle. My dad is the first line of defense against a robber, and if anything should happen to him, I am to try to find a way out for me and my mom. Even if that means I have to shoot the guy myself. We also have an alarm system that even I can hear when I sleep (I have a hearing aid and turn it off at night). We also have a dog that barks at everything that comes up the driveway.

Myself: Right now I am using a pepper spray to protect myself, but I am also considering either a handgun or martial arts. I'll probably go with handguns since my left foot is paraylized and I doubt I can be very fast and agile on my feet. So that side of protection for myself is still being developed.

So how do NSG protect itself, its family, and its home?

As a veteran, I have more means of protecting my family than most, as do my sons and sons-in-law, since I trained them. [ evil grin ]

As a veteran, I have more means of protecting my family than most, as do my sons and sons-in-law, since I trained them. [ evil grin ]

good for you

:)