Yep, this is what going mad feels like. by Fremdfirma

Quote:
Originally posted by freelancertex:
kinda hard to do over a computer unless you type *sarcasm* somewhere in your message. that just makes it not as much fun :-P lol
unless I'm misunderstanding you in what your meaning is by that statement.

I got that it was sarcasm. I'm asking you to tell me what point you were trying to make in plain English.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I figured it'd be common sense, crooks want easy targets, and almost without fail, flee the moment a weapon comes into play on the side of the victim, but you wanted some stats, there ya go.

Sure, if you're ever-present and they don't get your weapons first. The funny thing about people breaking into your house is that they tend to do it when there isn't someone waiting behind the front door with the American Armies yearly deficit in artilary. I was more talking blunt force objects, which make up the bulk of weapons used, rather than guns though.

Thanks for the links though, of all people here I suspect you can understand that I don't merely want to take your say so at face value

. I'm at work at the moment so a proper responce will have to wait awhile.

Quote:
One thing I find appalling at some of the other studies is considering a shot-dead perp on a homeowners doorstep a "victim of gun violence" to bump the the numbers and float the fear/hysteria factor... same way the media does with "terrorism" and for much the same reasons.

Kind of like the hysteria of suggesting all home invaders are mad men and out to kill you, your family and rape your dog, because they don't want to leave witnesses? Seems like a cousin of some sort of slippery slope that.

Quote:
And if you do, then you deal with it as best you can with the correct tools - no one PLANS on getting a flat, but your car has a spare, doesn't it ?

Sounds like a lot of people are planning to make their home into the OK Coral, here at least.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As for the police, the saying goes, “When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away.”

Citizen is of the opinion that criminals generally don’t want to get caught, and I agree. But criminals are generally aware of the response time of police officers. They typically understand that even when police are contacted, it will take them several minutes to respond. Otherwise, their profession would carry too much danger to be profitable. If officers instantly materialized in response to someone calling the police, criminals would be gainfully employed in other professions.

Let us presume that an officer can arrive on the scene within 7 minutes of a phone call to the police. This would be considered a VERY good response time in most areas, and the best that you can expect unless an officer just happens to be driving by when the call comes in.

Because in an emotionally charged situation, someone breaking into your house will think rationally and decide to commit mass murder because the police probably won’t arrive for a few minutes. Or more likely they leave immediately so they can get maximum distance between them and the scene, not stagger out a few moments before the police arrive with a blood stained microwave, so that they’re only few houses down when the carnage is discovered.

Quote:
Seven minutes is a very long time. It may not seem that way when you’ve got seven minutes to get to work, but it is an eternity when someone is attacking you. Seven minutes is more than enough time to murder my entire family, kill my dogs, and make off with my cash, credit cards, and an electronic appliance of your choosing. Heck, take the microwave. You can actually put your loot inside the microwave. That way you only need to carry one object.

Yeah, seven minutes that they can use to get away from possible capture for a lesser crime, as opposed to thirty seconds to get away from imminent capture for mass murder, you do the math.

Quote:
But perhaps a police officer really IS driving by. That could possibly be even worse. If the criminal does not immediately surrender or make a run for it, he may choose to take a hostage. Hostage situations are generally dangerous affairs, and the outcome can be unpredictable.

Because hostage situations are just so exceedingly common…

Quote:
Now, keep in mind that the criminal may thank me for my cooperation and leave calmly with my goodies. He may run when he hears that the ominous police force is coming. But he doesn’t have to. He has many options available to him, and several of the options are unsavory.

Most people breaking into your home aren’t interested in harming you, they’re interested in stealing what you own, doing it quickly, not getting hurt themselves, and certainly not getting caught. None of the unsavoury options are cogent to that end.

Quote:
As an alternative, I may confront the criminal with a weapon in my hand. Preferably a firearm.
…
He may try to kill me.
…
The criminal may try to run. This is the most likely scenario for a criminal who meets unexpected resistance. They leave.

He’s more likely to fight when presented with one. Being there is usually enough to get a burglar to leave.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:30 AM

Cit, believe me, if someones breakin through my door at 3am in the morning, I've no intent to ask them why - I can HOPE that it's some drunk who has mistaken the place for his house and can't find his keys, but till otherwise imma assume the putative intruder is hostile, and whatever his intent is, I don't really care - I just want him to go away.

And again with the whole wild west remarks, previously totally debunked.

The LAST thing I want is to bust a cap on someone in my doorway, and have to deal with the police, the mess, and the hassle that'd go with it, and that goes for most folk as well.

Having to clean some jerkwads brains off the back of my front door ain't my idea of a good time, especially if it was a junkie who might be HIV-pos or carryin Hepatitis or whatnot, and yes I have cleaned up after a shooting before, it's about as horrific a thing as you can imagine, not only because of the mess, but because the appalling waste of a human life is rammed home to you over and over during every second of it.

That bein said, if I truly feel it's him or me, it ain't gonna be me.

Avg police response in this area can range from 10 minutes to 45+, and that gets worse as you get closer to the city, and a freaked out criminal is likely to do anything, thankfully they usually run, but there is the chance of running up against a true sociopath, which must be accounted for.

Your argument also makes no sense at the end, if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?

And the ineffectiveness of a lesser weapon you cite, to my eyes is all the more reason to have a firearm handy- there's just no sense in handing a criminal a gimme, is there ?
http://www.corneredcat.com/

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:40 AM

FREELANCERTEX

Just bein' a smart ass is all. I do that sometimes. sry. :\

__________________________
Have you ever wondered why in a dream you can touch a falling sky?
Or fly to the heavens that watch over you?

"I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar."

A man is least himself when he speaks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show you his true self.

You can't take the sky from me...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:19 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
"if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?"

Hello,

I agree. If a criminal would run simply because I am home, he will certainly run if I am home and armed.

Otherwise, he's exactly the kind of dangerous person who I WANT to confront with a firearm.

Any bloke who will stand in my house and have a firefight with me is EXACTLY the kind of bloke that I don't want to give 7 minutes of time to enjoy my family, my dogs, and my microwave.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And again with the whole wild west remarks, previously totally debunked.

Not really, since I was talking about the notions mentioned in this thread. Perhaps you should read some of the other posts? Kirkules seems to be talking about killing and mutilating as the first option, Anthony seems to be suggesting shooting first and asking questions later, and you seem to be saying brandishing weapons on the first instance, on the highly unlikely possibility that they may be a psycho, is a good idea. Seems that last one is going to provoke a situation more than anything. Not really debunked at all, as far as I can see.

Quote:
Your argument also makes no sense at the end, if a burglar or home invader will flee from your presence, they will CERTAINLY flee from your ARMED presence, not immediately close for a fight and attempt to disarm you - what kind of thought process results in that conclusion ?

What results in that conclusion? Psychology, take a look at a cornered animal; you remove the escape route and threaten them, people or animals will attack in anyway they can. Brandishing weapons doesn't defuse a situation, what kind of thought process leads to that conclusion?

I get your not advocating opening up the moment you can, I have been reading your posts, though I’m beginning to wonder if the same courtesy is being extended to me, or maybe I’m not making myself clear?

You’re talking about what goes through your mind (him or me, so on and so forth) but then don’t extend that to him. If you’re there with a weapon, he’s going to be thinking the same thing you would in the same situation, if I run he might shoot me. He’s being physically threatened, rather than being threatened with possible capture. If you don’t want to get caught, capture is going to provoke you to run, but if you’re being openly threatened, it can and often does change the available options. People do insanely irrational things in those circumstances, like pulling their own weapons or trying to get yours.

EDITED for clarity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Any bloke who will stand in my house and have a firefight with me is EXACTLY the kind of bloke that I don't want to give 7 minutes of time to enjoy my family, my dogs, and my microwave.

You'd also be a bloke having a fire fight in your house.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:44 AM

Realistically, I'm mostly with Citizen here.

But just in case, it might be good to yell something like:
"Dude, you might wanna just leave now, unless ya think you can out-shoot me...do you feel lucky..PUNK?"

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Citizen, I don't think the situations are truly analagous.

In the case of a home intruder, I am the cornered animal. The home invader can always retreat the way he came. I'm not advocating cornering the man in a closet in my home. I'm advocating his retreat with more than words.

Walk into a bear cave and find a bear. Tell me if your instincts are the same as the bear's. Either you didn't want to find a bear, and so you run... or you did want to find the bear, and so you fight.

Either way, that bear needs to be scary and ready to tear you up.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:46 AM

I advocate random wild firing into a pillow to let them know you're prepared to kill 'em. Kind of like a bear growling....

GrrrChrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:18 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.

*BOOM BOOM BOOM*
GEEZE!!! Sorry Grandma!!! You should have turned on the lights!!!
Damn...the bulb's out....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:11 AM

FLETCH2

I think we need to clarify things otherwise we are going to talk at cross purposes forever. It seems to me that Anthony and Citizen are talking about two different classes of crime.

Anthony seems to be talking about the "In Cold Blood" style home invasion robbery where the perps enter the premises not only expecting to meet the owner but reliant on it (perhaps to force the owner to open a safe or with rape in mind.)

Citizen is talking about straight burglary where the perp's principle goal is to steal stuff and evade capture.

These are two different classes of crime with completely different types of criminals. As Cit suggests a sneak thief is more likely to run that fight if given a way out, where as the kind of guy planning a home invasion is probably going in intent on using force.

That established what you do in that situation has a lot to do with your perception of risk.

Fatal home invasion robbery's and rapes do happen even in the UK (though they are very rare.) I've been out of the UK for a while but I remember the Stephanie Slater case and one in Derbyshire where a family was murdered. There have been a number of family abductions and none fatal home invasion robbery's too.

However, at least in the UK the sneak thief is the more likely criminal to enter your home. In that situation the potential risks of a weapon being in the house (injury of owner/family, family homocide or unintended escallation) may outweigh the self defence benefits.

So how likely are home invasions resulting in actual bodily harm/rape/abduction or murder? There's no statistics but I'm willing to bet that they are not that common based on the fact that such cases get national media attention in the US (common crimes rarely get national cover.)

So is it reasonable to arm yourself against that unlikely event? Does the potential risk outweigh the actual risks associated with having a weapon in the house? I think that's a personal value judgement call. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen in the unlikely event that we get a small fire. Hopefully I will never have to use it but I made the judgement that however unlikely the event, the risk was enough to justify the costs. It's that kind of an assessment.

Actually that is an interesting question.

How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen

In Diamonds Are Forever, Bond made quite good use of one....

Just sayin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:31 AM

"you seem to be saying brandishing weapons on the first instance, on the highly unlikely possibility that they may be a psycho, is a good idea."

Someone breakin down your door at 3am in the morning?

Damn RIGHT it's a good idea!

You'd rather I hide under the bed and hope they go away ?
We're not talkin monsters in the closet now, but putative assailants who might be armed felons with intent.

And other than Jong, ain't not a one advocating immediate firing, you are mentally tripping over your own preconceptions here.

And how the hell is someone breaking into a home, with a CLEAR AND READY route of retreat a "cornered animal" ?

All they gotta do, is turn around and LEAVE, which is what I want em to do, hell that's the first thing out of my mouth, innit now ?

"People do insanely irrational things in those circumstances"

Once again destroying your own argument, on one hand saying their behavior is predictable, and then admitting it is not.

No, I DO NOT know what's going through his head, or what his plans are, and frankly, I don't give a shit, my entire goal is changing his plan into LEAVING NOW.

And if he does not, I am prepared for that eventuality too, although I'll be a lot less pleased with it, obviously.

That's what the light, and the shouted warning are FOR, to convince them to leave immediately - with appropriate, and enough force, in ready just in case that isn't what they do.

I ain't his damn therapist, ain't his damn buddy, and SURE as hell don't intend to be his victim, and as such I am under no obligation to have any mercy or leniency towards someone crossing the threshold of my dwelling unwanted in a manner that speaks of ill intent.

They get four words, cause when my arse is in the line I don't screw around, that's the only communication they get, and I ain't rackin the slide cause there's one up the pipe already.

At which point they got every possible reason to leave, and no reason for staying, but like you yourself stated, one cannot predict their behavior.

One can damn sure prepare for it, however.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:38 AM

"How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?"

Full coverage, several smoke alarms, tested on a regular schedule with good batteries in them, and a fire extinguisher (a real one, of decent size) in the kitchen, workshop and garage, as well as a respectable first aid kit in the bathroom.

The car has a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and fully loaded breakdown kit including some MREs and bottled water in case of breakdown in midwinter in the middle of nowhere.

No one can plan for every eventuality, but those prepared for the eventualities they ARE aware of, are more often than not the ones left around to bury the less fortunate.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Somebody breaks into your home when you're there....you don't know what they're gonna do : rob, rape, torture, kidnap? You don't need to ask any questions; just blow them away immediately, unless you're willing to risk the lives of your family on a hunch that they might not hurt you. That's too big a risk to take.

*BOOM BOOM BOOM*
GEEZE!!! Sorry Grandma!!! You should have turned on the lights!!!
Damn...the bulb's out....

Once again Chris your brilliance shines through! I never would have even dreamed of that possible scenario! Thank God you're always here to help us see the errors of our ways...whew!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW

sorry ...double post ...server very slow today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:03 AM

FLETCH2

You are the man Frem. I have smoke detectors, sprinklers and a decent extinguisher in the kitchen. I have one in my car aw well as a medkit, tools etc. We dont drive outside of Metro but I admit if we went cross country I'd add those meals too (used to carry self heating cans of stew back in the day..)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have a backpack with sneakers, a poncho, some energy bars and water, a flashlight, and work gloves just in case I have to WALK home after an earthquake and start digging somebody out.

But that's where my preparedness ends!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:13 AM

Quote:
Once again destroying your own argument, on one hand saying their behavior is predictable, and then admitting it is not.

Actually you've destroyed your argument, by not reading mine. I was saying people presented with an armed assailant do irrational things, and their more predictable if you just present an escape route.

You can be fairly sure that if you're there they are going to leave, they don't want to get caught, and that's the only major factor in their decision making. If you're openly armed and brandishing your weapon, the over ridding factor becomes not getting shot, which is a whole different motivator to not getting caught, and if they decide you're going to gun them down regardless, why wouldn't they attack you?

The only thing destroyed here is any lingering belief I may have had that you're actually interested in anything I have to say on the subject. Please read what I write in future.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Once again Chris your brilliance shines through! I never would have even dreamed of that possible scenario! Thank God you're always here to help us see the errors of our ways...whew!

I'll be here all week.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:37 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?"

Full coverage, several smoke alarms, tested on a regular schedule with good batteries in them, and a fire extinguisher (a real one, of decent size) in the kitchen, workshop and garage, as well as a respectable first aid kit in the bathroom.

The car has a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and fully loaded breakdown kit including some MREs and bottled water in case of breakdown in midwinter in the middle of nowhere.
No one can plan for every eventuality, but those prepared for the eventualities they ARE aware of, are more often than not the ones left around to bury the less fortunate.

-F

All of the above plus gas masks and NBC suits for both cars and home. I've had friends tell me I'm crazy for having gas masks, then a week later ask me were I bought them. I'm sure there are people in Bhopal, India that wouldn't think I'm crazy.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm sure there are people in Bhopal, India that wouldn't think I'm crazy.

In 2000 we took a bunch of exchange students to the top of the World Trade center, and I said to my wife in all seriousness, that I'd never work in a skyscraper without a parachute hanging on my wall.

If only...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:33 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So is it reasonable to arm yourself against that unlikely event? Does the potential risk outweigh the actual risks associated with having a weapon in the house? I think that's a personal value judgement call. I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen in the unlikely event that we get a small fire. Hopefully I will never have to use it but I made the judgement that however unlikely the event, the risk was enough to justify the costs. It's that kind of an assessment.

Actually that is an interesting question.

How many of the people that own guns have smoke alarms/fire alarms or extinguishers?

I have several smoke alarms and three fire extinguishers. I also have a home security system, a Glock 22 and two shotguns. I’m not at risk for tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes or flood, but if I were I would have contingency plans for those too. I don’t expect my house to catch fire, and I don’t expect someone to invade my house and try to kill me or my family, but while both events may be unlikely, they only have to happen once, and if you’re not prepared, it’s very possible that’s it for you.

I even have a plan for when the New Madrid Fault blows, but in all honesty, I expect that there’s no way to prepare for that one.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I can see we here are at the usual impasse between people who

(1) think that confronting an intruder with a weapon is the best way to defend your self/family and

(2) think that confronting an intruder with a weapon is the best way to provoke the intruder into hurting you.

I personally have nothing against the reasoning of group #2 as long as they don’t wish to interfere with the actions of group #1.

Everyone feel free to protect your homes, families, and lives to the best of your ability and capacity for reason. I hope we’re all here to old age and senility with neither philosophy being tested.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:49 PM

LEADB

I think it is entirely appropriate to use a weapon or other means to protect your home; but you must be prepared that in so doing you may provoke the intruder into attempting to hurt you. Of course, depending on the intruder, doing nothing or acting intimidated may provoke the intruder into attacking you.

Really, it's best just to not have intruders. I like my dog. He's big and noisy. Ok, I like him except when I'm trying to sleep; I like to think he's doing some good, though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 4:02 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I personally have nothing against the reasoning of group #2 as long as they don’t wish to interfere with the actions of group #1.

I often do have a lot of problems with the reasoning of group #2, usually because there’s generally no reasoning at all. It’s just taken as dogma that if you use a gun to protect yourself or your family it’s somehow always going to completely go awry as if there is some sort of supernatural power associated with a gun that will magically influence fate against you. I have no problem with cautionary arguments about the need for training and avoiding hot-headed behavior or giving the intruder an exit and generally avoiding conflict. These are all excellent points, but they are completely independent of the gun itself. Whether there are guns being used in the encounter or not, it always a good idea to be trained in how to deal with the encounter and always a good idea to avoid acting impetuously or allowing fear to control your actions. But in the end, I have never heard a convincing argument, and not very many reasonable arguments, that you will not generally be better able to protect yourself if you have a gun, then if you do not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:25 PM

I read it, just ain't making any SENSE out of it.

You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?

Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.

I class it in the same fantasy world as believing gun-free zone signs stop armed felons like a magic wall.

My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?

Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.allcountries.org/gun_ownership_rates.html
Country
% Households With Guns
firearm deaths/100,000
--------------------- ------- -----------------
United States
39
14.05

Canada
29.1
4.08

Finland
23.2
6.77

New Zealand
22.3
2.97

Australia
19.4
3.05

Sweden
15.1
2.31

Spain
13.1
1.01

Germany
8.9
1.47

England/Wales
4.7
0.57

And this doesn't even begin to address the hoops one has to go through to get a gun in those other countries.
Any questions ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:53 PM

ROCKETJOCK

My own feeling on home gun ownership? I don't own a gun, but that's my choice. If I lived in a more rural area, I just might. Someone who enters my home without permission, and/or with malice aforethought, should, in my opinion, be prepared to be met with extreme rudeness.

As to the logic of outlawing affordable swords because they've been used in criminal acts: They'd better outlaw raw potatoes and double-edged razor blades next, because the nastiest, cheapest weapon I've ever seen was constructed of one of the former and three of the latter. Luckily I wasn't carrying enough cash to make fighting for it worth the effort. I do miss that Zippo, though.

Honestly, even if you manage to control access to sharp, pointy things, they're easy enough to make in any basement hobby shop. And if the perfidious masses can't find 'em, they'll just downgrade to bicycle chains, or blunt instruments.

As for not bringing a sword to a gun fight; there is an anecdote that has been circulating in the west coast renaissance fair circuit for the last few years. I can't vouch for its truthfulness, but I've heard it from three separate sources, with essentially the same details:

Apparently a performer, whose persona was a highland Scot, was working Southern Cal Fair in full regalia, with a kilt, sporran and a back-slung Claymore broadsword. His car broke down, and he had no change of clothes, so he was forced to use the L.A. public transit system while so attired/outfitted. At some point, a group of young thugs decided they'd pick on the long-haired pansy in the skirt. One of them pulled a gun. The highlander disarmed him.

I don't mean he took the gun away.

When last seen, the remainder of the gang were legging it trippingly towards the Canadian border, while their erstwhile associate was taken to county general, where his arm was eventually reattached. (The performer had used one of his belts as a tourniquet until the paramedics arrived.)

Oddly enough, although the sword was taken as evidence, it was eventually returned to him. L.A. has a lot of laws relating to the entertainment industry on the books. A performer, en route to or from a gig, is allowed to carry working period (non-firearm) weaponry -- and the local DA said the situation was clearly self-defense.

Never overlook the psychological factor in comparing weaponry.

"I remain pro-knife. You have to catch someone before you can stab him, knives don't ricochet, and people are seldom killed while cleaning their knives. A better deal." -- Molly Ivin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:05 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I read it, just ain't making any SENSE out of it.

You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?

Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.

I class it in the same fantasy world as believing gun-free zone signs stop armed felons like a magic wall.

My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?

Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.

-F

My stance is simple. No one has the right to initiate violence. But once violence has been initiated, the one offended against has not only the right, but the responsibility to respond in kind, if at all possible. To do otherwise is to give those of ill intent an unfair advantage that is not conductive to the common good.

(For the purpose of this philosophy, the threat of violence is also violence, even if the one threatening doesn't follow through. Entering a home without permission and refusing to leave is also a form of violence-by-threat.)

"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:36 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Rue,

Here are some additional statistics to add to your own:

(I may edit this to fix formatting if the formatting gets screwed up.)

From: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Per 100,000 population

Country--------Year--Tot Homicide---Firearm Homicide---F. Suicide---% with guns
Switzerland----1994------1.32------------.58---------------5.61---------27.2
France---------1994------1.12------------.44---------------5.14---------22.6
U.S.A.---------1993------5.7------------3.72---------------7.35---------39.0
Norway---------1993-------.97-------------.3----------------3.95---------32.0
England--------1992------1.41------------.11----------------.33----------4.7
Scotland-------1994------2.24------------.19----------------.31----------4.7
N. Ireland-----1994-------6.09-----------5.24---------------1.34----------8.4

What can we deduce from your statistics and mine?

The percentage of households with firearm ownership bears not at all on the percentage of homicides. Norway and Switzerland were missing from your statistic list, but they are poignant examples.

Norway is interesting because although 32 percent of households own guns there, they have the lowest homicide rate of the listed nations. They have even lower homicide rates than our civilized brothers in England.

In short: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. When the anti-gun lobby wakes up and becomes an anti-homicide lobby, maybe they will apply pressure appropriately to address the source of violent crime.

Namely, People. Not Firearms.

Disarming the populace does not fix the ills of society. The ills of society can only be fixed by addressing the ills of society. So please let's stop focusing on tools. It's the minds and hearts of the people that need work.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You are telling me, that a home invading perp who would run from an unarmed homeowner, would then banzai charge an ARMED homeowner TELLING THEM TO LEAVE ?

Look, I've been polite, fuck it - that's bullshit and you know it.

It's not, you telling me "I've destroyed my own argument" and "that's bullshit and I know it" is bullshit, and you should know it. I've given you reasoning, in return you hand wave and tell me its bullshit. If you present an escape route, and they know that they're presence is known, they're thinking about not getting caught. If you're openly aggressive and armed, they're thinking about not getting killed, which is a whole different animal. People generally don't react aggressively unless they're confronted aggressively, if there is another option.

I'm not saying don't be armed (this would be where reading what I write and not assuming what I'm saying would have helped you out), I'm saying don't brandish your weapon and be openly aggressive. I thought it was well known psychology that aggression begets aggression, and I arrived at my conclusion at least partially by thinking about how I'd react in a similar situation. Seeing things from other peoples point of view is not 'bullshit' and you should try it.

Quote:
My way of lookin at it, the primary person who'd want me unarmed in that situation is the perp, and anyone siding with em on that is just aiding and abetting - crass that it may be, that *IS* how I view the situation, clear ?

As I said, I didn't say don't be armed, I'm saying don't be openly armed and aggressive because that raises the chances of an aggressive response. Police (that is competent police forces) are taught to be asertive but non-threatening when dealing with people, because that defuses the situation, where as aggression and pulling your gun and screaming tends to cause situations.

Quote:
Done discussin it with you at this point, we obviously ain't comin to no agreement, and there's no common ground left in reality to bother with.

It would have helped mutual discussion a great deal if you had listened to what I was saying, rather than assuming what I was saying was 'bullshit' and propaganda from 'the man'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:58 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

lol

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In short: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. When the anti-gun lobby wakes up and becomes an anti-homicide lobby, maybe they will apply pressure appropriately to address the source of violent crime.

Namely, People. Not Firearms.

Disarming the populace does not fix the ills of society. The ills of society can only be fixed by addressing the ills of society. So please let's stop focusing on tools. It's the minds and hearts of the people that need work.

The interesting facet is that your argument works both ways. That is Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.

My particular take on the gun/anti-gun lobby of America is that their both living in cloud cukooland, they're both extremists who see the middle ground (that is reality) as distasteful pandering to 'the other side'.

Too many Americans seem to have a shocking disrespect for the danger and responsibility of ownership of deadly weapons, its a RIGHT!!!!! Bollocks, owning a deadly weapon is a position of trust, it’s a privilege, and if you're not trustworthy and responsible enough for it, you shouldn't have it. Americas biggest problem with guns is the fact that so many see it as a basic right, and don't respect the position of trust their in for that.

Being able to buy guns with the relative ease you can in the States doesn’t foster a feeling of responsibility, it fosters a feeling of “cool, look at the new gun I got!” like many would talk about their latest IPod.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

Citizen said it best - Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.

But to address other points -

The statistics that were missing from my post were missing b/c while there were statistics on ownership, there were none found (at that site or its links) on firearm homicide. I originally had them in there but all the 'NAs' just cluttered up the post.

Your statistics and mine appear to be not comparable. For example, mine list 'total firearm death' for the US as 14.05/ 100K, while yours (adding F homicide and F suicide) is only 11.07/ 100K. Perhaps what's missing from yours is F accidental.

But to take your numbers and rearrange them:
----------------- T H ---- F H -------- T F ----- %Homes
NIreland ----- 6.1 ----- 5.2 -------- 6.6 ------- 8.4
USA ---------- 5.7 ----- 3.7 ------- 11.1 ----- 39.0
Scotland ---- 2.2 ----- 0.2 --------- 0.5 ------- 4.7
England ----- 1.4 ----- 0.1 --------- 0.4 ------- 4.7
Switz --------- 1.3 ----- 0.6 --------- 6.2 ------ 27.2
France ------- 1.1 ----- 0.4 --------- 5.6 ------ 22.6
Norway ------ 1.0 ----- 0.3 ----------4.2 ------ 32.0

Here NIreland is the outstanding 'most murderous' country, but in the early 90's from where the data was drawn it could be due to a state of urban warfare.
With the exception of N Ireland, further analysis reveals
---------------- %Homes --- % Homicides w/ Guns
USA--------- 39% --------- 65%
Norway ---- 32% --------- 30%
Switz -------- 27% --------- 46%
France ----- 23% --------- 36%

So while there seems to be a 'muderousness' issue in societies in general with the US at the top of the 'developed nations' list, the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.

And I can't think of anyplace in the US where having a widely armed populace would improve the situation. As rough examples and to maybe start you thinking about your own area - South Central LA ? No. Pasadena ? No.

Finally, FremD mentioned some cases that 'proved' making guns more legally available reduced 'crime rates'. Now I know this is not your argument so I'm not asking you to address it, but until someone shows me statistics I'm going with the data I have.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Um......

I don't buy stats anyhow, but I'm willing to humor you here Rue.

But do you really believe that the higher deathrate in America can be attributed only to guns?

I don't imagine you'd disagree with me that we have so many societial ills stateside that just lend themselves to murderousness. We are a lost and mixed up crowd here and we've never been at each other's throats more than we are today.

We don't hate each other any less than we did yesterday.... if anything we just mask it better. Underneath a blanket of political correctness and civility lies a whole lot of hate and resentment.

I don't believe that many of your examples, barring Ireland of course, have this to contend with.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:35 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi 6-ix

I was going to get into that - looking at relative poverty rates and so forth - but to do justice (so to speak) to the entire topic would take a PhD thesis. What I would say in general is that many developed European societies that until recently had kings and queens (and some still do) seem to have done much better with the whole 'democracy' concept than the US. Government as representative of the people as a whole, promoting the general welfare, securing the common defense, providing for themselves and their posterity, and so on.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:22 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT

Citizen said it best - Arming the populace does not fix the ills of society.

But to address other points -

The statistics that were missing from my post were missing b/c while there were statistics on ownership, there were none found (at that site or its links) on firearm homicide. I originally had them in there but all the 'NAs' just cluttered up the post.

Your statistics and mine appear to be not comparable. For example, mine list 'total firearm death' for the US as 14.05/ 100K, while yours (adding F homicide and F suicide) is only 11.07/ 100K. Perhaps what's missing from yours is F accidental.

But to take your numbers and rearrange them:
----------------- T H ---- F H -------- T F ----- %Homes
NIreland ---- 6.1 ----- 5.2 -------- 6.6 ------- 8.4
USA ---------- 5.7 ---- 3.7 ------- 11.1 ---- 39.0
Scotland ---- 2.2 ---- 0.2 -------- 0.5 ------- 4.7
England ----- 1.4 ---- 0.1 -------- 0.4 ------- 4.7
Switz --------- 1.3 ----- 0.6 -------- 6.2 ----- 27.2
France ------ 1.1 ----- 0.4 -------- 5.6 ----- 22.6
Norway ----- 1.0 ----- 0.3 ---------4.2 ----- 32.0

Here NIreland is the outstanding 'most murderous' country, but in the early 90's from where the data was drawn it could be due to a state of urban warfare.
With the exception of N Ireland, further analysis reveals
---------------- %Homes --- % Homicides w/ Guns
USA--------- 39% --------- 65%
Norway ---- 32% --------- 30%
Switz -------- 27% --------- 46%
France ----- 23% --------- 36%

So while there seems to be a 'muderousness' issue in societies in general with the US at the top of the 'developed nations' list, the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.

And I can't think of anyplace in the US where having a widely armed populace would improve the situation. South Central LA ? No. Pasadena ? No.

Finally, FremD mentioned some cases that 'proved' making guns more legally available reduced 'crime rates'. Now I know this is not your argument so I'm not asking you to address it, but until someone shows me statistics I'm going with the data I have.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Hello,

'the availability of firearms roughly corresponds with their percentage use in murder.'

The statistics don't seem to support this conclusion, either. According to your lineup, only in the US were a majority of homicides committed with firearms. Further...

Norway, with 7% less gun ownership, had less than 50% the rate of US homicides with guns.

Switzerland, with 12% less gun ownership, had 70% the rate of US homicides with guns.

France, with 16% less gun ownership, had 55% the rate of US homicides with guns.

The percentage of firearms ownership does not seem to scale with the percentage of firearms used in Homicides. That is, the percentages do not seem to increase/decrease at the same rate.

But even if they don't scale together at the same rate, there is at least some corresponding increase. This is akin to admitting that in a country with more cars than trucks, you will have more vehicular homicides with cars than trucks. I can concur with this premise. (Though it is curious that in the case of firearms, the percentages don't scale together. I would have expected them to.)

So what we have determined is this:

Firearm ownership is NOT a causal factor in homicides.

Citizen is quick to argue that we should not classify Firearm Ownership as a 'Right.' It is this position that prevents people from coming to a reasonable compromise on the issue of guns.

I have often said that if people were not trying to eliminate my right to own and carry a firearm, I would strongly support reasonable limitations and regulations upon that right.

The current problem is that many, many people refuse to acknowledge any right to be armed, and thus use any legislation limiting the legality of arms as a stepping stone towards complete disarmament.

I strongly support the notion that a competence test with a firearm should be necessary before ownership is allowed. I strongly support the notion that a basic mastery of use-of-force law should be necessary before carry is allowed.

I would love to see firearms electives in high school being available right beside driver's education programs. I freely acknowledge that while firearms are much less dangerous than automobiles, they should require many of the same competency proofs.

An anti-gun lobbyist or politician would use such regulations to weed out the majority of potential gun owners. A pro-rights lobbyist or politician would use such regulations to assure responsible ownership and use.

See the difference?

It is a fairly universal belief that 'most folk ought to be allowed to drive.' If we can come to that same stance on ownership and carrying of firearms, I will happily work with the system to create reasonable rules that should apply, and eliminate people that are incompetent to own or carry a firearm.

As a final aside, Frem mentioned that gun ownership corresponds with a reduction in crime rates. We have not studied those statistics yet, having focused entirely on homicides and suicides.

I look forward to reviewing this independent claim.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It is a fairly universal belief that 'most folk ought to be allowed to drive.' If we can come to that same stance on ownership and carrying of firearms, I will happily work with the system to create reasonable rules that should apply, and eliminate people that are incompetent to own or carry a firearm.

But driving isn't a 'right', it's still a privilege.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Quite right, Citizen. A fact you've often enough emphasized.

Except that after a lifetime of consideration, I think driving is, in fact, a right.

It's not an explicit right, though. There's nowhere in the constitution where someone's right to drive is guaranteed. This is unlike bearing arms, which is an explicitly guaranteed right. Hence, keeping and bearing arms is much more highly protected than driving a car.

However, liberty is an explicitly protected right, and liberty is a broad and far-reaching concept.

One aspect of liberty is that you are not confined by the government to some designated ghetto. You are free to move about. Move about your neighborhood, move about your city, your state, or your country.

There are lots of ways for people to move about. You could rely entirely on public transportation. This is a lot like relying on the police to provide all of your protections. Some places are well equipped for this. They have excellent bus or train services, for instance.

Most public transportation can't accommodate everyone, however. You may need to go somewhere where there is no public service, or you may need to go at a time when public service isn't provided.

You could hire a taxi. This would be akin to hiring a personal bodyguard, I guess. But taking a taxicab every day is rather expensive. Having taken taxis for very short trips, I'm always astonished to find that I can never seem to spend less than 20 bucks. Investing in a used gas-guzzler is actually cheaper over time, unless I don't go anywhere very often.

You could use a bike. You can't get everywhere quickly in a bike, but it does expand your radius. This would be like carrying a knife or a club, I suppose. Less dangerous than a car, but much more within the means of the economically challenged. But there are places a car can go that a bike would have trouble with. A bike is also severely limited on speed, which affects its radius. It also requires a fair amount of personal strength to operate. A physically challenged individual can't operate a bike well.

Or you could drive. Maximum freedom short of a helicopter. Relatively affordable if you don't insist on having a shiny new model. It accommodates a large radius, it's there when you need it, it can go to a variety of destinations, and it requires a minimum of physical prowess.

So, driving is the best guarantee of the Right to Liberty. This is why the majority of people will agree with the simple premise: "Most folks ought to be allowed to drive."

And then they put reasonable limits on it, while securing the premise.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:15 AM

You could say the same about flying a plane, or a space craft. It's a privilege, it has to be earned. Rights are there, from the moment you're born, they can be taken away (like freedom if you break the law and are sent to prison), but you don't personally need to earn them. That's why driving a car is a privilege, you have to earn it (by passing your test). Everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it, but not "[all] folks ought to be allowed to drive"; only those that have earned it should be given that privilege.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
but while both events may be unlikely, they only have to happen once, and if you’re not prepared, it’s very possible that’s it for you.

True.

Be prepared son, always be prepared Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
You could say the same about flying a plane, or a space craft. It's a privilege, it has to be earned. Rights are there, from the moment you're born, they can be taken away (like freedom if you break the law and are sent to prison), but you don't personally need to earn them. That's why driving a car is a privilege, you have to earn it (by passing your test). Everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it, but not "[all] folks ought to be allowed to drive"; only those that have earned it should be given that privilege.

Hello,

Citizen, was quoting 'MOST folks ought to be allowed to drive' too much of a challenge?

And no, rights aren't there from the moment you're born. We regulate Liberty in this country, and we even regulate sex. Fortunately, the only thing you have to do to earn most of your rights is live long enough.

In any event, Liberty is a right, driving is the most practical means for the common man to exercise that right in terms of movement. We regulate freedom of movement in proportion to the danger your chosen conveyence presents, which is why driving is regulated more harshly than bicycling and less harshly than flying.

I am glad to hear that you think everyone should be given the opportunity to earn it. I am confident that you don't feel the driving tests should be engineered in such a way as to weed out the majority of the population. Rather, it should be competence based.

That means you think that most people ought to be allowed to drive.

Just as I think most people ought to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 6:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Citizen, was quoting 'MOST folks ought to be allowed to drive' too much of a challenge?

That's right, that's why I put 'all' in brackets, to indicate I had changed the quote from the original in order that it better fit my own sentence, no lie about your statement was expressed or implied.

Quote:
And no, rights aren't there from the moment you're born. We regulate Liberty in this country, and we even regulate sex. Fortunately, the only thing you have to do to earn most of your rights is live long enough.

That's not earning them at all. You don't need a licence to have sex; you don't need to pass a test.

Quote:
In any event, Liberty is a right, driving is the most practical means for the common man to exercise that right in terms of movement.

Liberty is a concept, saying driving is liberty is an arbitrary distinction I don't find particularly compelling. It indicates someone is less free, has less liberty if they don’t have a driving licence, which is nonsense.

Quote:
Rather, it should be competence based.

Yes, though if for whatever reason most of the population were incompetent drivers, I'd have no problem with them being banned from driving.

Quote:
This means you think that most people ought to be allowed to drive.

No, I think anyone should be given the opportunity to earn the privilege of a driving licence, and anyone who ultimately earns that right ought to be allowed to drive, which is an entirely different thing.

Quote:
Just as I think most people ought to be allowed to keep and bear arms.

Good word play, but I think both are privileges that should be earned. I don't think owning a weapon is a right that anyone can get because they reach a lofty enough age. Someone shouldn't be entrusted with a deadly weapon until they have earned that trust, and proven they can act responsibly with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Anthony T

Apparently you read my post and missed the entire point.

As you will see from the numbers there are two trends taking place. One is overall 'murderousness', independent of gun ownership. That's what the first set shows.

The second set indicates that when a murder is committed, countries with the highest rate of overall gun ownership will have a higher percentage of their murders committed with guns.

Go back and look at the numbers. These facts are self-evident and the numbers bear me out.

***************************************************************
But I was too lazy - and, well, still feverish and in major pain - to do a proper regression curve.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:30 AM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
B] Americas biggest problem with guns is the fact that so many see it as a basic right, and don't respect the position of trust their in for that.

Americans don't just see it as a basic right. It is a basic right in law. With that right comes great responsibility. Just because I bought a gun legally doesn't relieve me of any responsibility. If I screw up and use it improperly, I'll be looking at 10 to 20 years in prison just like the guy who bought an illegal gun from a thief on the corner.

Quote:
Being able to buy guns with the relative ease you can in the States doesn’t foster a feeling of responsibility, it fosters a feeling of “cool, look at the new gun I got!” like many would talk about their latest IPod.

You got me here. New guns are "cool". Hope I get one for Christmas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:38 AM