American weapon's laws

[BillA]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
. . . . I hope your story was well-publicised - give burglars a second thought, eh?

Bob

and that is indeed the point
if gun ownership was widespread, with responsable and proficient owners, eh ?;
and intruders were routinely KILLED
(NOT arrested with a gun and set free on bail in several hours - I've been there too),
then it is clear to my mind that there would be fewer intruders

that those persisting might then be more violent ?
give me a break, read the paper - are they not already so ?

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by unregistered
well, how about the fact - rather than just words

after being awakened by breaking glass (classic NRA prose here)
at 4 AM I 'met' a stranger in my living room, crouched towards me
I shot him just below the right eye with a .357 wadcutter
he drowned in his blood several minuets later (and ruined a new carpet !)
not arrested, no-billed by the grand jury

do I sleep at night ? just fine thanks (but I do have a homicide on my record now)
BTW, ring the doorbell at my house

That's a real tragic story. Do you have any after thoughts that you would care to share?

[BillA]

tragic ?
TRAGIC ?

methinks you are a fool

why on earth, or any other planet, would I care a whit about a piece of shit breaking into my house at night ?

screw his 'needs', his childhood deprivations, his dysfunctional family, his lack of opportunities

I am, and will be, concerned about my and my family's security

if one wishes respect, START by giving respect
- not by breaking into houses

tragic ? yes, anyone thinking such

afterthoughts to share ?
sure
buy a large caliber pistol and practice a great deal (use ear protection !)
load it with heavy slug / low velocity ammo
keep it in a safe place
be prepared to use it
if you are a drunk or a doper disregard all of the above

[Brians256]

Good for you, Bill. Killing a man is a sad thing, but have no regrets that you did the least of all possible evils. That man will never break into another house.

Those who break the law no longer deserve full protection from their "rights". I would gladly shoot and kill anyone who endangered my family, friends or (to some extent) my property. I would probably be very sad that I had to kill the person, but I would not change the decision to protect myself and my family.

To me, responsible weapons handling is defined as being in control of the weapon at all times that the weapon is not locked up. A gun is for entertainment (shooting range, etc...), collecting, or killing. It is not a threat. If I pull a gun out, someone is going to be shot. Otherwise, you'll never see it.

Yes, I have taken the required classes for a concealed weapons permit.

Having said that, I choose not to have a gun in the house because I have small children that make a gun more difficult to keep simultaneously safe and effective. If I was worried about my neighborhood, I would get a large dog, because dogs are less likely to accidentally kill family members (pack instinct). Now, when the kids are older, I might reconsider my gun ownership options.

Misc thoughts:
1. Criminals will always have weapons that are illegal. Laws don't usually change that.
2. People will kill each other with any and all available means at hand. You may change their method, but they will still kill each other. Reducing the homocide rate means that you change the culture, not change the available weapons.
3. The government should fear the people or it will have no respect for them.
4. The people should respect the government because it protects them.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by Brians256
Good for you, Bill. Killing a man is a sad thing, but have no regrets that you did the least of all possible evils. That man will never break into another house.

Is that true? Is it the least of all possible evils?

I don't have a gun, and I do insist that my kids don't play with toy guns either. That being said, I have entertained the idea of getting one for some time.

2 things:

1-One must be prepared to shoot at another human being. It's hard to tell if one could, until faced with the situation. It's hard to do, for anyone.

2-I would not shoot down an unarmed person. That would be an unnecessary use of force. I may threaten to shoot, while calling the authorities, but if he decided to run off, then I'd let him. Either way, I doubt I'd ever see him/her again.

Of course sometimes it's not possible to tell if an intruder is armed, but the importance of "property" does not come to be as being above the life of others, no matter what they do. The "shoot first, sort them out later" mantra doesn't fly with me.

[BillA]

Ben

to say that your post exhibits imprecise, confused, circular, and irrational 'thought' would be an understatement

you are NOT a candidate for handgun ownership
in your debate and dilemma it will be taken away from you and used against you
as Brians256 said, when you show your gun it is ONLY to pull the trigger

better that you learn to bleat like a sheep at the slaughter

big fish eat little fish, so if you do not wish to be eaten - better to have thorns

at the time of a violent assault, all of your words and thoughts and intentions don't mean jack shit
believe me Ben; at the right time and place, shooting someone is the easiest thing in the world
-> but NOT if you are confused

do not fear death, it comes to each of us
and by our actions we hasten or retard the day, thats all

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k
Is that true? Is it the least of all possible evils?

I don't have a gun, and I do insist that my kids don't play with toy guns either. That being said, I have entertained the idea of getting one for some time.

2 things:

1-One must be prepared to shoot at another human being. It's hard to tell if one could, until faced with the situation. It's hard to do, for anyone.

2-I would not shoot down an unarmed person. That would be an unnecessary use of force. I may threaten to shoot, while calling the authorities, but if he decided to run off, then I'd let him. Either way, I doubt I'd ever see him/her again.

Of course sometimes it's not possible to tell if an intruder is armed, but the importance of "property" does not come to be as being above the life of others, no matter what they do. The "shoot first, sort them out later" mantra doesn't fly with me.

This , I believe, illustrates the difference between Americans and Canadians rather clearly. We may jokingly refer to Canada as "the 51st state", but there exists a wide cultural gulf between our two societies. Canadians, as well as most Euro-centric cultures, have so beaten down the concept of private property rights (as well as individual rights in general) that people are expected to "give it up" rather than defend themselves.

As to point 2 above, I hope you are never in a position to parse out the necessary vs. unnecessary use of force in a split-second, as Bill has done. As I see it, if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling, he's not there to help you clean the basement. He's gambling, and sometimes you lose. Bill won, and though he can be a real PITA, I think most of us are OK with that. (Maybe he won't piss on my next design now )

Bob

[mfpmax]

I thought we called Puerto Rico the 51st state

Since they supply us with rum and hot spanish women

[Brians256]

Well, I think we may disagree on a fundamental issue, BigBen2k. I believe that there are some crimes that (at least temporarily) remove the ability for a person to expect guaranteed safety. If someone breaks into my home, he or she should not expect to be safe. If they surrender to authorities or to a civilian arrest, fine, but that is unusual. If they respected authority, they wouldn't be breaking into my house. Burglars also have a bad tendency to repeat their crime (even after prison time). So, stopping a burglar once is depriving other homes of their presence. So, yes, I do believe that it is a least evil of the alternatives.

It takes a lot of forethought to break into someone elses house. I don't mind rewarding it.

As for having the ability to shoot a human, I have (thankfully!) never been required to do so. I suspect that I'd be like decodediesel in that I'd probably shoot, it'd be over quickly, and I'd be hard to calm down for several hours. Animals are much easier to kill.

Also, remember that it is difficult to tell if someone is armed. Demeanor is much more important than the visibility of armament. The primary task of the home owner is threat assessment, not proving a threat. Just as I assess the thread from a 220VAC electric line, I assess the potential threat from an intruder. I turn off the breaker on the electric line because I might be hurt, not because I know that I will be hurt.

Please remember that I am NOT eager to kill anyone, but I am unrepentant about my right to defend my family and property. Frankly, I'd rather see the criminal stopped and corrected such that his/her behavior is no longer antisocial. But, wishes are not always granted.

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by mfpmax
I thought we called Puerto Rico the 51st state

Since they supply us with rum and hot spanish women

The hot spanish women don't come to Detroit. We get Canadian hockey wenches

Bob
(Suburban Detroiter)

[bigben2k]

He he, nothing wrong with the wenches!

Well, BillA, as usual you're right. If I did get a gun, I'd have to leave the bullets behind.

I'm glad that we're discussing this.

Since ya'll were cordial enough to point out the difference here, I don't suppose that you would volunteer your opinion on capital punishment?

(Maybe we should start a new thread!)

[BillA]

Originally posted by Brians256
. . . . . Animals are much easier to kill.

. . . .

now for me that is much tougher to call

I enjoy eating wild duck, greatly
so as a hunter (translate = big fish) I shot them, to eat of course
the question:
ever watched a duck as it flies, moving its head from side to side, lOOking for danger
- then you rise up to shoot it

I used to ride my horse by a particular house and the resident dog would hide in different spots in the bushes to jump out and bite my horse in the hocks
- big time, lots of blood
I spoke with the owners, to no avail
so one day I picked up the dog and took it to the hills where I shot it in the head
- it too looked at me

to this day I think about, and regret, killing that dog
why ?
because it was just 'being a dog'

not so with the burglar/assailant, he was being a wolf
now he is a dead wolf
good

[Skulemate]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
This , I believe, illustrates the difference between Americans and Canadians rather clearly. We may jokingly refer to Canada as "the 51st state", but there exists a wide cultural gulf between our two societies. Canadians, as well as most Euro-centric cultures, have so beaten down the concept of private property rights (as well as individual rights in general) that people are expected to "give it up" rather than defend themselves.

I always thought that the difference was that Americans watch TV while Canadians watch American TV...

Seriously, while that may highlight one of our many differences, I disagree with your bias. I cannot speak for all who live in my fair country, but I for one am not about to give up my individual rights at the drop of a hat as you imply... however, I do feel that any life is worth more than my damn TV.

[mfpmax]

Now this is a Spoken Word Poetry thread.

[BillA]

Skulemate

more fuzzy thinking
what ya gonna do, negotiate ?

"ok, you can take the TV and here are some credit cards,
but you can't rape my wife or my daughter"

it is clear you and your family have not been assaulted;
I am not too concerned with my TV, but I am even LESS concerned with a thief's health

here you go Ben

pre-paid capital punishment

the social sciences (sic) crowd is getting pretty good at identifying 'at risk' portions of the populace
- so kill all of such at birth; if the parents are statistically linked, kill them too

a couple of generations - no more social scientists

[Skulemate]

Of course not Bill... but there is a difference between gathering your family and defending yourselves in a bedroom while you call for help and actively going after the guy. It's not the end reaction that has me, if pushed I bet I'd do the same thing... what gets me is how easily that reaction is thrown around.

And before you respond, I'm not in any way implying that's what you did either... you've not said enough here for anyone except you to know that.

[bigben2k]

I see you're briefed on social engineering!

I think that the point is taken, for us Canadians, at least! (Skulemate and I).

Since they've outlawed guns in the UK, shooting an intruder will get you arrested, and charged with homicide, as well as illegal posession. Querky, but there.

From the (typical) Canadian view, I have to believe that an intruder is after possesions, not hurting/killing my family. Maybe it's naive of me, but I can't help to think that there would have to be a motive.

But it does happen.

In that light, if I found an intruder, and if I knew that he meant to hurt/kill us, and if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot, wether the intruder was armed or not.

But that's a pretty long "IF" list.

As already stated, there's an inherent risk in holding a weapon until this happens which to me, outweighs being equipped to respond to such an intruder with deadly force.

Things change...

[BillA]

kind of a concluding note, from my perspective

wolfs like, and eat, sheep
given the social polarization and disintegration that seems apparant,
given the declining social concord and effect of deterrence;
there will likely be more 'freebooters' in the future

whacha gonna do ?
an ounce (can you say 158 grains ?) of prevention is worth a pound of cure

[utabintarbo]

Originally posted by bigben2k

From the (typical) Canadian view, I have to believe that an intruder is after possesions, not hurting/killing my family. Maybe it's naive of me, but I can't help to think that there would have to be a motive.

But it does happen.

In that light, if I found an intruder, and if I knew that he meant to hurt/kill us, and if I had a gun, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot, wether the intruder was armed or not.

This illustrates the dichotomy fostered for lo, these many years in the more socialistic-leaning countries of Europe (and by extension, Canada). Let me expand...

If a person is out to remove your posessions from you, he does not recognize your rights. Any of them. Whether he has the 'nads to hurt/kill you is beside the point. If he removes your TV, that's OK? How about if he removes your car, clothes, bank account, burns down your house (while you're not in it, for the sake of argument), and leaves your family destitute and forced to live on the street, that should be OK, right? After all, they're only posessions! He isn't PHYSICALLY hurting your family, is he?

The fundamental right of man is to live. To accomplish this, he REQUIRES the right to posess items necessary to life (food, shelter, computers, etc.) If someone is of the mind to deprive you of something that is yours, why would he stop at your TV, if there were no tangible consequences (jail isn't a consequence for those who don't think they'll be caught).

I am not advocating capital punishment for simple larceny, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Bill's intruder took a gamble and lost. Darwinism in action.

/soapbox mode

Bob

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by utabintarbo
If a person is out to remove your posessions from you, he does not recognize your rights. Any of them. Whether he has the 'nads to hurt/kill you is beside the point. If he removes your TV, that's OK? How about if he removes your car, clothes, bank account, burns down your house (while you're not in it, for the sake of argument), and leaves your family destitute and forced to live on the street, that should be OK, right? After all, they're only posessions! He isn't PHYSICALLY hurting your family, is he?

The fundamental right of man is to live. To accomplish this, he REQUIRES the right to posess items necessary to life (food, shelter, computers, etc.) If someone is of the mind to deprive you of something that is yours, why would he stop at your TV, if there were no tangible consequences (jail isn't a consequence for those who don't think they'll be caught).

I am not advocating capital punishment for simple larceny, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Bill's intruder took a gamble and lost. Darwinism in action.

Isn't that why we have insurance? Or is it just for those occasions that we weren't home when burglarized? Should a security guard be substituted, no of course, that's not cost efficient.

Of course insurance isn't a substitute for letting people rob you of things.

Good point about jail not being a deterrant.

LOL! Darwinism in action indeed! Wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the basic necessities of life were met, without any effort?

[BillA]

"Wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the basic necessities of life were met, without any effort?"

you are not looking at that which is in front of your nose

do you think car-jackers eat them ?
how can you be so deluded as to think these 'takers' are motivated by "the basic necessities of life" ?

but assuming for the sake of discussion that they were in such need ?
then violence is ok ?

Ben, I hope to NEVER live in your world
need makes right - WOW !

here's the endpoint of that path:
have a ton of babies, have even more, strip the land to feed them
move to the cities on the dole, riot for more, have more babies
seize the capital goods and destroy them and 'the landed gentry', have more babies
seize whatever there still is, and then ?

education is about the only escape, therefore
no education = no children

you, and the world's do-gooders presume it is a distribution 'problem', and that 'life is precious'
well, it ain't so
life is common as dirt, children with no chance dying daily

how about having fewer children, lets make children of value;
have one per individual and at its majority (16 ?) the parent kills themselves ?

there are some hard choices that need to be made, but sanctioning violence is not an alternative (to me)

[Bignuts]

Crush the enemy.

See him driven before you.

Hear the lamentations of the women.

[bigben2k]

Hum... my suggestion wasn't meant as something to be implemented, even in an ideal world.

I was refering to food and shelter, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that violence would otherwise be acceptable.

But I'll try to follow your thinking, about a car.

Why does someone rob a car? To sell its parts, for money. What does the robber need with money? Food and shelter? Surely not. If such a person steals a car, it's for money, which would more than likely be to pay off someone that he/she owes money to, like a drug dealer, right?

Of course I'm not trying to imply that "need makes right" either. This is my "problem solving" approach:
-find the cause
-open a forum to solutions
-execute a fix

You're delving into "education" and "raising children"as a topic. Is this a distraction tactic to throw off the topic? I will agree with you that there is much to be done in those two areas, and sadly, little is being done. Why?

[mfpmax]

The MAN is keeping me DOWN!

[warpath]

KILL ALL DOGS