Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[Snorri1234]

A prime example of the US legal-system functioning.

This guy shot two people in the back and it was self-defense? WHAT THE f*ck MAN??!



I guess they were going to kill his wife/baby and he had no other way to prevent that.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

And there we have it, in Texas, property is more important that human life - if the skin is dark, that's for sure

This just happened like a hundred miles from my house. A guy was HOUSE SITTING and some teenagers broke in with guns. He killed one of them in self defense. They weren't leaving, and didn't believe him when he said that he was talking to 911 and had a gun.

As for the rest, I'll reply tommorrow. Bed time...

He killed two guys with a shot in the back. That doesn't sound like self-defense to me.

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Have you ever seen a crackhead fight? They literally are the Hulk. I'm not kidding.Yes I have.

But have you ever seen a crackhead break into a home to kill?
Of course you haven't, because the majority of drug-addict crime is committed solely to steal. The point is (again) that people aren't breaking into your home (the example which you seem so obsessed with) to kill you, they're doing it to steal. As such, waving a military-grade lethal-weapon around is unecessary, and by letting both sides of the situation have access to such things you simple increase the chances that somebody will die... you don't reduce the likelihood of the crime, and you don't reduce the likelihood that harm will come to you/others.

Yes, I have. He broke in and slit my Uncle's throat for crack money. But fortunitly my uncle made it to the hospital and lived. But that's not the point. Someone on drugs isn't going to be making the best life decisions.

And here's the catch-22. If someone breaks into your home, while you are home, then you must ASSUME that they know you're there. And if they know that your there, then certainly they have a plan for what to do with you.
If you aren't home, fine-GOOD, then you didn't need that gun. If someone just wants to rob you then they will do the sensible thing and wait for you to leave.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
It's an argument about stopping powerActually that's a sideshow argument born of a gun-culture mentality that doesn't see firearms as the catalyst for lethal violence. This is an argument about guns.

This wasn't my argument, I was just agreeing. And I'll leave it at that for now.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Where your family lives. Where your baby is at. And the new puppy that was supposed to be a guard dog.Oh God, not this sentimentalist "Guns are for protecting newborn babys" thing again.

Take or leave it, but protecting yourself and your family is the big reason people buy guns. Those people that don't hunt I mean.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
If someone is invading your home to rob you, then they don't have the money for an Uzi.Firstly, that's not true, crime does pay. Secondly, if they're a career criminal then damn sure they'll have purchased the tools of the trade. Thirdly, if they're a housebreaker then they've probably stolen a (widely and legally available) gun already. Fourth, that statement of yours was just plaing wrong.

No idiot makes a career out of home invasion while people are home. If they do, they don't last too long. An Uzi is not a "tool of the trade" for home invaders.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Am I to ignore to assume that we are ignoring hunting arms for this debate?Probably... but you ought to know that I think "I need a gun so that I can occasionally go to the woods and butcher wildlife to feel like a man" is another shit justification for having guns.

For the record, in my community, dear cause many more deaths and injuries per year than guns. Just wanted to lob that out there!

Juan_Bottom wrote:
No arms-raceing, unless you mean organized crime.Yes arms racing, in all walks of life. Logic says it will happen, cold-hard statistics say it has happened. No amount of "only badmen and gangstas don't know how to use guns" preaching changes that fact.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Everyone around me has a gun collection. They are collectable, like tattoos I suppose.Oh hey, aren't you the guy who was telling me that only organised criminals did gun-stashing and arms-racing? Guess you'd just forgotten about all of your neighbours when you said that eh?

Firstly, WTF do you mean by Arms-Racing? I took it to mean that everyone will buy a tank. Secondly, I didn't forget about anyone. Most of the gun-owners around here have about six HUNTING FIREARMS. Plus probably another two firearms that are heirlooms. This is not arms-racing, these people aren't trying to build an armory or win any wars. There is no arms-racing. By now, if there was, all homeowners would have an M16.
I have no idea about organized crime. I assume you to be correct. But I also assume that any organized crime syndacate could get guns anywhere, anytime.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
A simple rapist or home invader will probably use what he/she has avaliable.Which in the USA is a semi-automatic lethal-weapon, probably armed with the hollow-points that were so lovingly described earlier.

Seriously, you're telling me what I already know. In a society where guns are nt available then criminals will not use them. In a society where the latest and greatest killing technology is sold in Wal-Mart, then criminals will be carrying it.

My local wal*Mart only carries hunting rifles and shot-guns. And they all suck. And they don't sell hollow points anywhere around here---> state restrictions.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Where did idea that every American has a KC-109 for killin' each other come from? We aren't all running around killing each other.From your own fevered imagination? I never said it, that's for sure.

What I did say however, was that great numbers of Americans are in possession of lethal weapons that are intended only for inflicting harm to other humans, and that as such American crime is destined to be more violent, faster-escalating, and more deadly than in places where the population aren't all armed to the teeth.

I was talking about these types of statements.

As such, waving a military-grade lethal-weapon around is unecessary, and by letting

Yes arms racing, in all walks of life

Which in the USA is a semi-automatic lethal-weapon, probably armed with the hollow-points that were so lovingly described earlier.

If someone is invading your home to rob you, then they don't have the money for an Uzi.Firstly, that's not true, crime does pay. Secondly, if they're a career criminal then damn sure they'll have purchased the tools of the trade.

Oh hey, aren't you the guy who was telling me that only organised criminals did gun-stashing and arms-racing?

All this "Oh I need my freedom, my gun is very important, where is the proof that death will fall if we don't all own the most efficient murder-weapons known to man?"

but simply because a different though equally lethal gun might be better than the precise gun I described (i.e. military-grade murder-weapon A is in fact more suitable than military-grade murder-weapon B)

giving people full and free access military-grade murder-tools

American crime is destined to be more violent, faster-escalating, and more deadly than in places where the population aren't all armed to the teeth.

Your totally right about this. We've had guns through our entire nations history. By now the fast-escalating violence has become so bad that I can't leave my home. I don't know if I can survive being shot again.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
I think you guys have been propagandized.Oh yes, I forgot that lizardmen, Ameros, and shadow governments would have something to do with it. After all, anybody who doesn't agree with American Culture must be a brainwashed drone... right.

WTF Mustard? Don't be such a dumbass. I was talking about growing up in a part of the world where you have no right to guns, and having been raised by family and state to believe guns to be evil. And watching too many Hollywood movies. Did you know that the film Shoot 'Em Up wasn't a documentry?
A good rebuttel to this would have been, 'I think you've been propagandized!'

Well actually guns aren't a tool in the same way that knives are, because unlike knives, guns have no purpose other than killing other humans.

You didn't mean that right? So I'm gonna let that go.....

As such I'm willing to permit knives, as the danger they pose is far less than that of guns

Except in the UK. Over here it's guns, over there it's knives.

As such all of this "They're just a tool, people are the problem" argument is rubbish.

No it isn't because knives are a tool, and for some reason people are still getting stabbed in England. You're telling me that having a gun in your hand will cause you to shoot someone? Your argument here is rubbish. People are the problem. Society is the problem.

But hey let's work with your logic, how does this sound: "Nuclear Weapons are just a tool.In the same was as guns. On person may use them to deter others from harming their family and property, while another uses it to demolish an entire city. As such, we should legalise nukes".

You all ready for civillian ownership of nukes, warships, tanks, and missiles Juan? It's where your logic points us.

This is a discussion about gun-ownership, not nuke ownership. And that's what my argument is for. Let's not widden the argument and throw stupid what ifs in here.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
only a civilized state would allow its citizens to own firearms.Rubbish, pure unbased and unsupported rubbish.

You didn't qoute the whole thing! That's basically what I was saying to you.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
They are a deterrant, in more ways than one.1. They're not. Criminology studies have been proving that for decades. They're only a deterrent in the mind of the paranoid gun-owner
2. What are your more ways than one?
3. Nuclear Missiles are a deterrant, Knife-Bats are a deterrant, why aren't you permitting them to be put in the hands of every 'patriot'?

1) Let's play the same scenario game. You are a home invader, and you are going to rob one of two identical homes. Home A's owner has a sidearm, and probably knows how to use it. Home B's owner may have a cricket bat. Now your going to try and sneak in while the owner is home, so now which house do you choose?
If you don't like this scenario I could use one with a mugging?
2) They are a deterrant in all they ways brought up before.....Our government fears it's people. It's why D.C. had the gun ban. It is also a deterrant from the(unlikely now) scenario of foriegn invasion.
3)Carry a knife-bat if you want. Around here you can. But why? just get a gun. And if guns aren't a deterrant, then certainly Nukes aren't .

Juan_Bottom wrote:
It's I, not the intruder, being forced to do harm. S/He broke into MY home.That statement is premissed on the notion that the only way to deal with a home intrusion is with lethal force. Stupid at best, barbaric at worse.

WHAT?!?! If someone is invading my home while I am there, they are the one being stupid and barbaric! Again, I have to assume that they know I'm in there.

Just because somebody is on your property doesn't force you to do them harm, it simply forces you to end the situation. Now this is a crazy outside-the-box idea, but perhaps you could try methods such as scaring-off, calling the authorities, or non-lethal force? I mean, I know it's blue-skys thinking, but perhaps you're not being forced to butcher anybody here... maybe not everyone is out to get you and you're just being forced to intervene to make them leave?

Great! Now what if they don't go?
And what-if they did? What if they did know that you were home? What if they planned on tieing you to the register in the bathroom and raping your wife? What if the phone was out? And what if you did get ahold of the police? How long before they get there? What if something happens while you are waiting for them? What if?

It doesn't matter how you look at it having a gun would make you feel a hell of a lot safer.
Use whatever words you wish..... butcher? It doesn't make it so...It is blue skys thinking.

Actually I'm asking the correct question, but you seemed to shy-away from the 'knife-bat' conundrum.
Also, comparative criminology shows that lower numbers of guns in society leads to lower numbers of gun-crimes being committed; these lower numbers lead to less deaths as crime is less lethal.

Wow! You got me here Captain Obvious. I am not shying away from anything.
In England you get stabbed. In America you get shot. Whoopidy-doo! If the criminal is gonna kill you, then it's up to you to not get killed.

Put it this way; a "mass public shooting" occurs every ten days in the USA, in the UK the last one we had was over a decade ago.
Precisely how high do you need your death count to rise before you think takign away your guns will be justified? All this "Oh I need my freedom, my gun is very important, where is the proof that death will fall if we don't all own the most efficient murder-weapons known to man?" preaching and wriggling is just a classic example of gun-loving Americans burying their heads in the sand.

Firstly, define "mass public shooting." I live here and I don't know what you mean. But anyways, that's just more of what I have called enviromental. Secondly, who's wriggling and burying anything? I never said anything specific about death rates either. Who are you debating here dude?

aaaaand we're back to all that weird sentimentalist tosh. Please stop with all these silly made-up fictionalised anecdotes of violence that might happen.

I'm English, so I'd rather interupt and scare off my intruders with a 999-dialled phone in my left hand and a cricket-bat in my right, than have my face blown-off by a startled intruder the day after my children were gunned down in their high-school by their semi-automatic wielding peers.

This made me laugh, though not in a mean way. Read your second sentance first, and then your first one.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
And I'm American, so I'd rather go down swinging than have my throat slit while tied to the register in the bathroom.aaaaand we're back to all that weird sentimentalist tosh. Please stop with all these silly made-up fictionalised anecdotes of violence that might happen.

It wasn't ment to be ancedotal. I'm saying that I wont let anyone become empowered over me. if I can help it. And yeah, It probably is a gun-culture state of mind...

Juan_Bottom wrote:
You can't get the guns away for this reason. To outlaw guns, you are turning honest citizens into criminals.What are you even talking about?
How does not owning a gun turn you into a criminal? Without your gun would you suddenly feel compelled to steal cars, take drugs and molest young-children? What is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you? Where you getting tired or something?
Honest Americans own guns. Americans wont give up there guns. So,... If you take away the Right to Bear Arms you are turning honest citizens into criminals.
What's wrong with you?

Juan_Bottom wrote:
you all ignore Canada, which has MORE GUNS PER CAPITA, AND LESS CRIME.Stats please. I dispute your bald assertion.

I don't have any. Although There are a lot of heavy guns in Canada, due to military manufacture, I don't know have any stats about home ownership. I read it on the NRA's website. I asked ya'll about it twice and no one replied, and I assumed it to be true.
So while true, it may not be.

[Snorri1234]

Juan_Bottom wrote:Oh God, not this sentimentalist "Guns are for protecting newborn babys" thing again.

Take or leave it, but protecting yourself and your family is the big reason people buy guns. Those people that don't hunt I mean.

The point is not the reason they buy them, it's just that the reasoning doesn't actually work in the grand scale.

JFirstly, that's not true, crime does pay. Secondly, if they're a career criminal then damn sure they'll have purchased the tools of the trade. Thirdly, if they're a housebreaker then they've probably stolen a (widely and legally available) gun already. Fourth, that statement of yours was just plaing wrong.

No idiot makes a career out of home invasion while people are home. If they do, they don't last too long. An Uzi is not a "tool of the trade" for home invaders.

It's very hard to judge whether the house is empty or not. They hope there is noone there when they come in, but if there happens to be someone with a gun they will get their guns to protect themselves.

Guns are just not that hard to get for them so why not bring one if the situation gets out of hand?

Probably... but you ought to know that I think "I need a gun so that I can occasionally go to the woods and butcher wildlife to feel like a man" is another shit justification for having guns.

For the record, in my community, dear cause many more deaths and injuries per year than guns. Just wanted to lob that out there!

This is really not helpfull. Pools cause more deaths than guns, but using that as a justification of having guns is silly.

I have no idea about organized crime. I assume you to be correct. But I also assume that any organized crime syndacate could get guns anywhere, anytime.

You assume too much. Organized crime syndicates can ofcourse get guns without much problems, but the thing is that in the US unorganized crime can also easily get them.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
A simple rapist or home invader will probably use what he/she has avaliable.Which in the USA is a semi-automatic lethal-weapon, probably armed with the hollow-points that were so lovingly described earlier.

Seriously, you're telling me what I already know. In a society where guns are nt available then criminals will not use them. In a society where the latest and greatest killing technology is sold in Wal-Mart, then criminals will be carrying it.

My local wal*Mart only carries hunting rifles and shot-guns. And they all suck. And they don't sell hollow points anywhere around here---> state restrictions.

Yeah DM is using hyperbole but the point is clear.

Well actually guns aren't a tool in the same way that knives are, because unlike knives, guns have no purpose other than killing other humans.

You didn't mean that right? So I'm gonna let that go.....

Oh there are probably many purposes for guns other than killing humans, so you will have no trouble naming a few of them, right?

As such I'm willing to permit knives, as the danger they pose is far less than that of guns

Except in the UK. Over here it's guns, over there it's knives.

Knives are far less dangerous than guns.

As such all of this "They're just a tool, people are the problem" argument is rubbish.

No it isn't because knives are a tool, and for some reason people are still getting stabbed in England. You're telling me that having a gun in your hand will cause you to shoot someone? Your argument here is rubbish. People are the problem. Society is the problem.

You're missing the point! A knife or a baseball-bat or a crowbar can be used to kill people, but they're not designed for it.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
They are a deterrant, in more ways than one.1. They're not. Criminology studies have been proving that for decades. They're only a deterrent in the mind of the paranoid gun-owner
2. What are your more ways than one?
3. Nuclear Missiles are a deterrant, Knife-Bats are a deterrant, why aren't you permitting them to be put in the hands of every 'patriot'?

1) Let's play the same scenario game. You are a home invader, and you are going to rob one of two identical homes. Home A's owner has a sidearm, and probably knows how to use it. Home B's owner may have a cricket bat. Now your going to try and sneak in while the owner is home, so now which house do you choose?
If you don't like this scenario I could use one with a mugging?
2) They are a deterrant in all they ways brought up before.....Our government fears it's people. It's why D.C. had the gun ban. It is also a deterrant from the(unlikely now) scenario of foriegn invasion.
3)Carry a knife-bat if you want. Around here you can. But why? just get a gun. And if guns aren't a deterrant, then certainly Nukes aren't .

1. Criminals magically know which people have guns and which ones have not? Scratch that, criminals are rational thinking people?

The problem with your identical scenario is that things are never identical and criminals don't know the first thing about who they are robbing.

Guns are a deterrant in the same way that capital punishment is. Ideally it should be, but studies have shown time and time again that it's not.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
It's I, not the intruder, being forced to do harm. S/He broke into MY home.That statement is premissed on the notion that the only way to deal with a home intrusion is with lethal force. Stupid at best, barbaric at worse.

WHAT?!?! If someone is invading my home while I am there, they are the one being stupid and barbaric! Again, I have to assume that they know I'm in there.

"He broke into my home so I have to shoot him" sounds amazingly barbaric though.

Just because somebody is on your property doesn't force you to do them harm, it simply forces you to end the situation. Now this is a crazy outside-the-box idea, but perhaps you could try methods such as scaring-off, calling the authorities, or non-lethal force? I mean, I know it's blue-skys thinking, but perhaps you're not being forced to butcher anybody here... maybe not everyone is out to get you and you're just being forced to intervene to make them leave?

Great! Now what if they don't go?

You wait for the police ofcourse. Or if they come at you you beat them with your fucking bat.

It doesn't matter how you look at it having a gun would make you feel a hell of a lot safer.

Feel, yes. Actually make you safer, no.

But anyways, that's just more of what I have called enviromental.

Yes, the environment of having lots of guns.

What is wrong with you? Where you getting tired or something?
Honest Americans own guns. Americans wont give up there guns. So,... If you take away the Right to Bear Arms you are turning honest citizens into criminals.
What's wrong with you?

Then they aren't being honest anymore.
Noone is forcing you to not give up your guns.

[Juan_Bottom]

The point is not the reason they buy them, it's just that the reasoning doesn't actually work in the grand scale.

True-ish. Depends on where you live. Out here, you own a rifle for deer hunting. In the city you own a nickel-plated 9mm to protect your stuff.

It's very hard to judge whether the house is empty or not. They hope there is noone there when they come in, but if there happens to be someone with a gun they will get their guns to protect themselves.

Guns are just not that hard to get for them so why not bring one if the situation gets out of hand?

You don't bring a gun if your a pro. It adds another decade onto you possible jail time. I remember reading an article about a gang in New York that almost exclusivly robbed trains and semi-trucks. They made sure that their members didn't carry guns so that if they are caught they would both avoid prison time, and a felony. A pro isn't gonna put you, or themselves into that situation. I don't want to say another robber would be considered desperate, but if they are packing heat....

This is really not helpfull. Pools cause more deaths than guns, but using that as a justification of having guns is silly.

I wasn't being serious. It was funny to me. But Hunting is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a firearm. Especially here, where we need more hunters. Deer don't have any natural preditors left here.

You assume too much. Organized crime syndicates can ofcourse get guns without much problems, but the thing is that in the US unorganized crime can also easily get them.

That wasn't the point. You are taking that out of context. The point was that that the Average American does not own a tank. But DM is probably right that organized crime could get one. Unorganized crime can get ahold of lots of different guns. But not machine-guns.

Yeah DM is using hyperbole but the point is clear.

And unrealistic. The cat mugging me behind Dunkin' Donutes may have a gun, but it isn't going to be a semi-automatic with hollow-points.

Oh there are probably many purposes for guns other than killing humans, so you will have no trouble naming a few of them, right?

You're not kidding are you? Think about it, or look at my deer post above and go from there.

Knives are far less dangerous than guns.

Except in the U.K.

You're missing the point! A knife or a baseball-bat or a crowbar can be used to kill people, but they're not designed for it.

Give a person a knife-bat, and someone may die. Give a person a gun, and someone may die.
My point is that a weapon is a weapon in the hands of someone who would do harm to another. People are the problem. You ignored my point.

1. Criminals magically know which people have guns and which ones have not? Scratch that, criminals are rational thinking people?

The problem with your identical scenario is that things are never identical and criminals don't know the first thing about who they are robbing.

Guns are a deterrant in the same way that capital punishment is. Ideally it should be, but studies have shown time and time again that it's not.

For purpose of discussion..... Criminals are people. People with A LOT to lose. And People have brains. So yeah, they aren't going to try to get caught or killed. In this manner I wouldn't test my wit against theirs. Someone who routinely breaks certain laws is going to know what they are doing, aren't they?
Guns are a deterrant if you know someone has one. Or once you've been shot at. Ever pick a fight with someone who is packing? I bet you wouldn't still want to fight.
There are whole parts of our country where everyone has a gun and there is nill crime. Some places by law! My home for example, has no crime. But I wouldn't say that having a gun is the reason there is little real crime. I'd say it's because of our families.

"He broke into my home so I have to shoot him" sounds amazingly barbaric though.

Firstly, I never said that you have to shoot anyone. Secondly, I think you missed the point on purpose.

You wait for the police ofcourse. Or if they come at you you beat them with your fucking bat.

In this version of events(you're able to call the police) I would assume that any burglar/rapist would try and flee. But if they don't you may have anywhere from 5-45 minutes before the police get there. A lot can happen in five minutes.
BTW emergancy police response time to Kent(My hometown) is just barely under an hour.

It doesn't matter how you look at it having a gun would make you feel a hell of a lot safer.
Feel, yes. Actually make you safer, no.

I disagree. When I imagine myself in that situation I feel safer with a gun. It lets you feel like you have some control.
So I'll just agree to disagree.

Yes, the environment of having lots of guns.

LOL!, I ment that you are who you are because of how you were raised. That you are a product of you enviroment. Guns are everywhere here, but Americans aren't all running around blasting at each other. In that same way that knives are everywhere in the U.K. but all English aren't running around stabbing each other.

Then they aren't being honest anymore.
Noone is forcing you to not give up your guns.

Its a government for the people. I was saying that they will never take our guns away because Americans wont allow it. Honest, law-abiding Americans wont allow it.

[Snorri1234]

The point is not the reason they buy them, it's just that the reasoning doesn't actually work in the grand scale.

True-ish. Depends on where you live. Out here, you own a rifle for deer hunting. In the city you own a nickel-plated 9mm to protect your stuff.

This is really not helpfull. Pools cause more deaths than guns, but using that as a justification of having guns is silly.

I wasn't being serious. It was funny to me. But Hunting is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a firearm. Especially here, where we need more hunters. Deer don't have any natural preditors left here.

I don't own a 9mm to protect my stuff. I also have never been mugged or have my house robbed. I don't think me having a gun is going to help me in the unlikely event it happens.

Also, I know hunting is sometimes actually needed. We have that here too. Wildlife control is sometimes vital so there are a few hunters here who keep the population in check.
They don't own handguns though.

It's very hard to judge whether the house is empty or not. They hope there is noone there when they come in, but if there happens to be someone with a gun they will get their guns to protect themselves.

Guns are just not that hard to get for them so why not bring one if the situation gets out of hand?

You don't bring a gun if your a pro. It adds another decade onto you possible jail time. I remember reading an article about a gang in New York that almost exclusivly robbed trains and semi-trucks. They made sure that their members didn't carry guns so that if they are caught they would both avoid prison time, and a felony. A pro isn't gonna put you, or themselves into that situation. I don't want to say another robber would be considered desperate, but if they are packing heat....

"Pro's" aren't exactly the majority of criminals. Hell, if there is one part of criminal society you don't really have to worry yourself about it's fucking organized crime. Their organizations are led by smart people.

However, it's not like there aren't trains or trucks robbed by people with guns. Or banks, or any number of other things. For every smart criminal there are countless stupid ones. Ones who really do actually think bringing a gun when they're robbing a house is a good idea.

If criminals were actually smart then we might as well get rid of the police. They are not however.

You assume too much. Organized crime syndicates can ofcourse get guns without much problems, but the thing is that in the US unorganized crime can also easily get them.

That wasn't the point. You are taking that out of context. The point was that that the Average American does not own a tank. But DM is probably right that organized crime could get one. Unorganized crime can get ahold of lots of different guns. But not machine-guns.

Probably also machine-guns with a little trouble. That's the point. In other countries you really have to be very well connected to even get a handgun, to get a machine-gun is almost impossible.

Yeah DM is using hyperbole but the point is clear.

And unrealistic. The cat mugging me behind Dunkin' Donutes may have a gun, but it isn't going to be a semi-automatic with hollow-points.

Well if he shoots you you are still dead.
However, if he knew the odds of you carrying a gun yourself were big, then he would try to get a better gun.

Oh there are probably many purposes for guns other than killing humans, so you will have no trouble naming a few of them, right?

You're not kidding are you? Think about it, or look at my deer post above and go from there.

Oh yes, killing animals at times. However, hunting-rifles are not the issue here. Damn, hunting-rifles are pretty much legal everywhere, though it varies on how big they are. It's not like the UK doesn't have hunting-rifles.

Any uses for handguns or semi-automatic rifles other than shooting others?

Knives are far less dangerous than guns.

Except in the U.K.

No. Knives are not automatically more dangerous than guns in the UK. They are just more frequently used because people don't have guns. I'd rather have someone come at me with a knife than a gun, even if I had a gun myself.

You're missing the point! A knife or a baseball-bat or a crowbar can be used to kill people, but they're not designed for it.

Give a person a knife-bat, and someone may die. Give a person a gun, and someone may die.
My point is that a weapon is a weapon in the hands of someone who would do harm to another. People are the problem. You ignored my point.

Give a person a knife-bat and he might kill a person or two, give someone a handgun and he can kill about 30 people with ease.

A weapon is not the same as any other weapon. How can you not see that?

For purpose of discussion..... Criminals are people. People with A LOT to lose. And People have brains.

Well a lot of those brains seem unused though.

So yeah, they aren't going to try to get caught or killed. In this manner I wouldn't test my wit against theirs. Someone who routinely breaks certain laws is going to know what they are doing, aren't they?
Guns are a deterrant if you know someone has one. Or once you've been shot at. Ever pick a fight with someone who is packing? I bet you wouldn't still want to fight.
There are whole parts of our country where everyone has a gun and there is nill crime. Some places by law! My home for example, has no crime. But I wouldn't say that having a gun is the reason there is little real crime. I'd say it's because of our families.

Indeed, those places wouldn't suddenly have more crime if guns are taken away though. Pointing out places were there is little crime don't actually make your point stronger. We are comparing places with lots of crime to eachother. Like urban areas in the UK and urban areas in the US.

You missed the point of my post though. Guns are not a deterrant simply because there are many, many reasons to do things. If you have two homes with one being very big and full of riches but having a home-owner with a gun, and one being very small and from some poor guy with no gun, you're not going to rob that poor guy just because he has no gun. And what if the one with the gun is old and the one without it young and strong? This is even assuming you know the owners have guns or not.
Guns are a deterrant in an ideal world, just like the death penalty is a deterrant in an ideal world. If everyone was rational and afraid of being put to death if they killed, murder would be non-existant. It is not however.

You wait for the police ofcourse. Or if they come at you you beat them with your fucking bat.

In this version of events(you're able to call the police) I would assume that any burglar/rapist would try and flee. But if they don't you may have anywhere from 5-45 minutes before the police get there. A lot can happen in five minutes.
BTW emergancy police response time to Kent(My hometown) is just barely under an hour.

If you're not able to call the police why would you be able to get your gun?

And if that burglar/rapist doesn't flee, then why were you saying all those criminals are rational and would insure they aren't caught? The odds of getting caught when you flee and the odds of getting caught when you rape the owner or burglarize the house are pretty different.

It doesn't matter how you look at it having a gun would make you feel a hell of a lot safer.
Feel, yes. Actually make you safer, no.

I disagree. When I imagine myself in that situation I feel safer with a gun. It lets you feel like you have some control.
So I'll just agree to disagree.

I actually said you'd feel safer. Hell, I'd feel safer.

You wouldn't actually be any safer though.

Then they aren't being honest anymore.
Noone is forcing you to not give up your guns.

Its a government for the people. I was saying that they will never take our guns away because Americans wont allow it. Honest, law-abiding Americans wont allow it.

Yeah I know americans wouldn't like it or vote for anyone wanting to do that. However, law-abiding is determined by the government so if they outlaw guns you're not law-abiding anymore if you have them.

To call them honest, law-abiding Americans is silly. They're just honest, stubborn Americans, something I admire and detest in them.

Just because banning guns will never happen in the US doesn't mean you can't think they're safer without them.

[Juan_Bottom]

]

I don't own a 9mm to protect my stuff. I also have never been mugged or have my house robbed. I don't think me having a gun is going to help me in the unlikely event it happens.

Well, would it hurt?

Also, I know hunting is sometimes actually needed. We have that here too. Wildlife control is sometimes vital so there are a few hunters here who keep the population in check.
They don't own handguns though.

Watch a hunting program sometime. Deer hunters at least, do use handguns. Though it isn't common practice. They make special harnesses for them. Again, it isn't commonplace.

"Pro's" aren't exactly the majority of criminals. Hell, if there is one part of criminal society you don't really have to worry yourself about it's fucking organized crime. Their organizations are led by smart people.

This is what I'm saying. If someone bursts into your home while you're there they ain't too smart. They are more dangerous than a pro!

Probably also machine-guns with a little trouble. That's the point. In other countries you really have to be very well connected to even get a handgun, to get a machine-gun is almost impossible.

I swear I din't say that, but there it is! Must have been left over from something I deleted? But, new point I guess. Very few working machine guns are in private hands. States regulate that stuff. You still have to be connected to get them.

Well if he shoots you you are still dead.
However, if he knew the odds of you carrying a gun yourself were big, then he would try to get a better gun.

Lol, you're not being serious are you? Sure, no one carries Deringers anymore, but by now you think we would be carrying bazookas?

Any uses for handguns or semi-automatic rifles other than shooting others?

Well-shot(clear sand away from a sandpoint). Sonar-shot(it's what they use to send sonar underground, though they don't use actual slugs). And does anyone know if they still use shotguns to fire up airplanes? I doubt they still build planes that way... When did this become a discussion about handguns?

No. Knives are not automatically more dangerous than guns in the UK. They are just more frequently used because people don't have guns. I'd rather have someone come at me with a knife than a gun, even if I had a gun myself.

The point I was making is cultural. It's people that are the problem.

A weapon is not the same as any other weapon. How can you not see that?

The point being that if I want you dead, you have to stop me. Sure, if I want to kill thirty people, I would reach for a fully automatic M16. But If I really wanted to kill thirty people then not having a gun wont stop me. Weapons themselves are not the same, but the people in control of these situations are.

Indeed, those places wouldn't suddenly have more crime if guns are taken away though. Pointing out places were there is little crime don't actually make your point stronger. We are comparing places with lots of crime to eachother. Like urban areas in the UK and urban areas in the US.

You missed the point of my post though. Guns are not a deterrant simply because there are many, many reasons to do things. If you have two homes with one being very big and full of riches but having a home-owner with a gun, and one being very small and from some poor guy with no gun, you're not going to rob that poor guy just because he has no gun. And what if the one with the gun is old and the one without it young and strong? This is even assuming you know the owners have guns or not.
Guns are a deterrant in an ideal world, just like the death penalty is a deterrant in an ideal world. If everyone was rational and afraid of being put to death if they killed, murder would be non-existant. It is not however.

Those places with lots of crime need re-education. Taking guns out of the equation isn't the humanitarian answer.
I am comparing those places with my home.

Guns are a deterrant once your looking down the barrel of one. Call it a can of bad-guy repellant.

If you're not able to call the police why would you be able to get your gun?

And if that burglar/rapist doesn't flee, then why were you saying all those criminals are rational and would insure they aren't caught? The odds of getting caught when you flee and the odds of getting caught when you rape the owner or burglarize the house are pretty different.

Because of all the what ifs that I already posted, and many more. Like what if the phone lines were cut? What if the offender was all cracked out? I don't know.

I actually said you'd feel safer. Hell, I'd feel safer.

You wouldn't actually be any safer though.

Why not?

[radiojake]

A prime example of the US legal-system functioning.

This guy shot two people in the back and it was self-defense? WHAT THE f*ck MAN??!



I guess they were going to kill his wife/baby and he had no other way to prevent that.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

And there we have it, in Texas, property is more important that human life - if the skin is dark, that's for sure

UPDATE

This story was on our news bulletin last night, and they have the audio of the guy talking to 911 as he shot the two guys - the 911 guy was telling him not to shoot, and he's all 'I got a shotgun, I'm gonna shoot them now' *BANG *BANG*

Sounds like self defence to me, not -

This guy got let off because Texas is full of racist xenophobes who don't like darkies. The fact is, if these two guys were breaking into his neighbours house, call the fucking cops and get them done on break and enter charges. Since when is a bullet in the back an appropriate punishment for break and enter?

[Juan_Bottom]

Isn't it illegal in Texas to shoot someone in the back?

In Illinois you can't even stop a burglar if they are trying to leave.That's an illegal citizen's arrest. I can't believe that it is legal in Texas to shoot burglars in the back.

Has this guy been charged of anything at all? If not, I'd bet the case is just building. These burglars must at least have an angry family.

How do you know racism was involved?

[Snorri1234]

Has this guy been charged of anything at all? If not, I'd bet the case is just building. These burglars must at least have an angry family.

The guy got away with it. It's an story from some time ago, and now the courts have ruled that what he did was allowed.

[Snorri1234]

Also, I know hunting is sometimes actually needed. We have that here too. Wildlife control is sometimes vital so there are a few hunters here who keep the population in check.
They don't own handguns though.

Watch a hunting program sometime. Deer hunters at least, do use handguns. Though it isn't common practice. They make special harnesses for them. Again, it isn't commonplace.

I meant that in my country hunters don't use handguns. Sure they can't hunt deer, but the fact is that handguns are not needed for hunting.

Probably also machine-guns with a little trouble. That's the point. In other countries you really have to be very well connected to even get a handgun, to get a machine-gun is almost impossible.

I swear I din't say that, but there it is! Must have been left over from something I deleted? But, new point I guess. Very few working machine guns are in private hands. States regulate that stuff. You still have to be connected to get them.

Yes, but less connnected than we. I have to be very well connected to get my hands on a handgun, getting a machine-gun is just impossible.

Well if he shoots you you are still dead.
However, if he knew the odds of you carrying a gun yourself were big, then he would try to get a better gun.

Lol, you're not being serious are you? Sure, no one carries Deringers anymore, but by now you think we would be carrying bazookas?

No no. I'm just saying that arming yourself will only give the criminal reasons to arm themselves. The arms-race thing isn't a very speedy process.

Any uses for handguns or semi-automatic rifles other than shooting others?

Well-shot(clear sand away from a sandpoint). Sonar-shot(it's what they use to send sonar underground, though they don't use actual slugs). And does anyone know if they still use shotguns to fire up airplanes? I doubt they still build planes that way... When did this become a discussion about handguns?

The minute you guys brought up "but guns are needed for hunting too".

A weapon is not the same as any other weapon. How can you not see that?

The point being that if I want you dead, you have to stop me. Sure, if I want to kill thirty people, I would reach for a fully automatic M16. But If I really wanted to kill thirty people then not having a gun wont stop me. Weapons themselves are not the same, but the people in control of these situations are.

Actually, you not having a gun would probably be better. I can actually stop you, you know. If you walk into a school carrying a knife, you might be able to stab one or two persons before you're either overpowered by some people or they have run away and called the cops.

People who want to kill a lot of other people are stopped everyday! If we really couldn't stop anyone from killing whomever they wanted, then what use is the police force or a legal system?

I am comparing those places with my home.

And you shouldn't do that, simply because you cannot compare the difference guns are making because the rest of the environmental factors are so vastly different.
Guns are not the cause of violence, they are an escalating factor. Only when you have an explosive situation will the guns make it worse.

Guns are a deterrant once your looking down the barrel of one. Call it a can of bad-guy repellant.

Then you don't understand what a deterrant is. Deterrants are things that stop you from trying to commit the crime, not stop you when you're actually doing it. Having the police pull up is also likely to stop you from continuing to rob someone, but they are not a deterrant when somebody wants to rob something/someone.

[Juan_Bottom]

The guy got away with it. It's an story from some time ago, and now the courts have ruled that what he did was allowed.

Crazy.... Texans! Texans saying it is ok to shoot someone in the back.....

I meant that in my country hunters don't use handguns. Sure they can't hunt deer, but the fact is that handguns are not needed for hunting.

Agreed.

Yes, but less connnected than we. I have to be very well connected to get my hands on a handgun, getting a machine-gun is just impossible.

Fine? It's harder to get

You know what? I'm bored with this argument. I think we understand each other, and it's not like anyone else is going to read all this and add a fresh perspective. Truce? Don't make me shoot you........

[Snorri1234]

Fine? It's harder to get

You know what? I'm bored with this argument. I think we understand each other, and it's not like anyone else is going to read all this and add a fresh perspective. Truce? Don't make me shoot you........

You'll have to catch me first!

*runs of gibbering like a mad-man*

[Juan_Bottom]

*Bang Bang!*

[heavycola]

*Bang Bang!*

*kiss kiss!*

[InkL0sed]

, nudge, nudge

[Snorri1234]

, nudge, nudge

winkwink saynomore saynomore

[tzor]

winkwink saynomore saynomore

I wasn't going to.

[bedub1]

I'd lay my life down to protect a friend/family member/myself. And as a result, I have no problem putting you down if you attack them.

Bang Bang! Bang Bang! (double taps - 4 rounds through the face)

[suggs]

I'd lay my life down to protect a friend/family member/myself. And as a result, I have no problem putting you down if you attack them.

Bang Bang! Bang Bang! (double taps - 4 rounds through the face)

Do you get confused at the Zoo?

[bedub1]

I'd lay my life down to protect a friend/family member/myself. And as a result, I have no problem putting you down if you attack them.

Bang Bang! Bang Bang! (double taps - 4 rounds through the face)

Do you get confused at the Zoo?

People are animals....

[suggs]

rational thought.
awareness of finite life span.
complex language.
self control.
morality.
religion.
written word.
music.
playboy

but ya get my point. we're more than animals, and surely part of the point is to put as much distant between them and us as possible?

[bedub1]

rational thought.
awareness of finite life span.
complex language.
self control.
morality.
religion.
written word.
music.
playboy

but ya get my point. we're more than animals, and surely part of the point is to put as much distant between them and us as possible?

of course. but wtf does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that if some guy is raping my mom, I should use rational thought, complex language, self control, religion etc to convince him to stop? Or just blow his fucking head off and realize he just got what he deserves? Maybe the next animals will use more rational thought before coming to the conclusion it's okay to rape people....

[suggs]

My point was, although we are animals, we are also more than animals.
We have freedom of choice, because of our unique ability to reason, and to master our impulses and emotions.
Thus, one could blow some ones head off. Or you could try and exercise self control and realise that it is a crime, and inhumane, and call the cops/use some other form of restraint.

I'm not advocating total pacifism, merely pointing out that people aren't merely animals, and the point (for me and most of the human race) is to try and PROGRESS and stop the cycle of violence.
People having guns hasn't really helped in this respect.

[bedub1]

I'm not advocating total pacifism, merely pointing out that people aren't merely animals, and the point (for me and most of the human race) is to try and PROGRESS and stop the cycle of violence.
People having guns hasn't really helped in this respect.

I'm not talking about the cycle of violence that is typically associated with gang violence. Gangs shouldn't have guns, because they are criminals.

I'm talking about honest people, citizens, cops, security guards, average every day Americans with guns. When they use them for defense, it isn't a cycle. It's cause and effect. You break into my house, you get shot. It's a deterrent to break into the house, and makes ya want to rob the guy without the gun. You can't eliminate the effect (getting shot) until you eliminate the cause (breaking into the house) otherwise you'll just have lots of "causes" and no "effects".

The sign at the school that says "no guns" only applies to the law abiding citizens. The kid with the gun who wants to kill everybody doesn't care what the sign says, he's a criminal and criminals doesn't follow laws. But the law abiding citizen that could help defend (with proper training which is VERY IMPORTANT) is now helpless. Why wait 5 minutes for a cop when it takes less than a second to draw a firearm? By carrying, you are given additional privileges, and as always, taking on an additional level of responsibility. Which means training and education.

This probably won't surprise you, but I'm all for arming and training the entire population that wants to learn. The wild west wasn't actually wild, it was very polite and peaceful and civilized cause the "bad guys" got strung up immediately and everybody had a gun and knew how to use it. So doing something "wrong" surely meant getting shot. If there is no punishment then the actions will continue. If sugar didn't make ya fat you'd eat it all day.

[suggs]

Hows that working out for you guys?
Low crime rate?