Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I couldn't care less about hunting, as a woman who lives alone, I would like the right to rest easy in my own home knowing I have the means to protect myself from an intruder.
You absolutely have that right. The 2nd amendment doesn't specify the intended use of weapons and prohibits any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. It was not made an inalienable right only for hunting, sport use or home defense.
I have a dog......she WILL hear someone trying to break in.....her warning will give me the time I need to grab my gun.......maybe enough time to call 911 too. In the mean time, I don't have to worry about whether the police will get here in time to save me, I have the means to save myself.....a gun.
I think dogs are probably one of the best deterents anyway but i do know of instances when nintruders have entered homes and the dog has slept through it. A good excample is the little girl kidnapped from her home while her family dog slept through it.
And in your scenario.....the police wouldn't do me any good either, would they?
Absolutely. My scenario is to have tougher gun laws so you wouldn't need a lethal weapon in your home......... Happens in many many countries, why not here?
An alarm system? Most of the alarm systems around here depend on your phone line.....which can easily be cut. Snip, snip. And..........a gun is a lot cheaper than an alarm system and the monthly fees involved.....a lot of people cannot afford alarm systems. What if you are a renter? Is my landlord required to install an alarm system for me? NO.
Put up a couple of sensor lights up high to deter intruders... they hate drawing attention to themselves... much much cheaper than a gun
How would I have a chance to defend myself from an unarmed invader? What would I do? Stab him, hit him with a baseball bat, beat him up? If I got close enough to him to do that....he would just take the weapon away from me, and probably use it on me. That is what is good about a gun.....I do not have to get close to him to defend myself.
Sorry to say but even your wonderful gun would be useless once the intruder has you. If a intruder wants you badly enough they will be on you before you even wake up or get yourself orientated. Many with guns at home still get raped or murdered......... With gun laws as they are, the intruder can get a gun as aesily as you can.
Home invasions happen all over the World....... Only difference is that in the USA, home intruders know you could be armed so do the same. It will be a case of who shoots first and the intruder has the edge as he is already in stealth mode and ready to fire before you have even woken up.
Home invasions happen all over the World....... Only difference is that in the USA, home intruders know you could be armed so do the same. It will be a case of who shoots first and the intruder has the edge as he is already in stealth mode and ready to fire before you have even woken up.
There are a few problems with this:
- it's a nice theory, but in reality it doesn't work out this way most of the time
- it's the home owner's responsibility to detect threats early (alarm devices, dogs)
- even if you're right and more people are put down by the intruder before they could react, statistics are irrelevant in individual cases; a rape/murder victim doesn't give a damn about them
- if both sides had no guns (which won't be true) it comes down to knifes or physical strength, also not a good thing to look forward to from the victim's perspective (guns are the great equalizer, especially for women and weaker people)
With gun laws as they are, the intruder can get a gun as aesily as you can.
No unfortunately you're wrong with gun control the intruder likely has a lot easier time in getting a gun than a law abiding citizen, if they didn't then explain why handgun crime increased 89% in the UK from 1997 (when handguns were outlawed after Dunblane) to 2007. If gun control worked for Criminals, then please explain where all the guns come from that are used in crimes in the UK.
Look, if I want to legally buy a gun I go to my FFL I fill in a 4473 form, I'm given a background check through NICS, and if I don't appear in the system I get given a proceed and can take possession of the gun.
Now Jake's illegal gun emporium (International) requires one thing only and always has regardless of the current law of Jake's location, Jake needs cash, period, no questions asked, none of the race, address, mental or criminal history, police licenses, or whatever the local regulations may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro
Home invasions happen all over the World....... Only difference is that in the USA, home intruders know you could be armed so do the same. It will be a case of who shoots first and the intruder has the edge as he is already in stealth mode and ready to fire before you have even woken up.
Are you saying that a home owner is not armed without a gun...? So knives don't count, or baseball bats, or golf clubs, or billy clubs, or brass knuckles, or fists, feet, knees, elbows or head? So no matter where you are in the world, then the home intruder knows you could be armed, and thus puts you at risk of being attacked with a weapon that exceeds a legally defined maximum, unless the legally defined maximum is the state of the art in personal protection, and in this world right now that's a firearm.
Criminals obtain weapons most often illegally, and therefore are not subject to any weapon control prohibitions and restrictions (See Jake's illegal arms emporium above). Unfortunately criminals and victims have been involved in an arms race for much longer than countries have been; by disarming victims you're only enabling the criminals to continue to operate.
You're also wrong that the ONLY difference is that in the US an intruder knows you could be armed, you ignore Switzerland, which has a huge per capita gun ownership level (around 50 firearms/100 residents), yet has a lower per capita murder rate than anywhere in Europe with the exception of Greece. It also has a per capita crime rate that is pretty low, however it's still 36/1,000 so in Switzerland for your Hypothesis to be true I'd expect a much higher murder rate. This is not the case however.
Sorry to say but even your wonderful gun would be useless once the intruder has you. If a intruder wants you badly enough they will be on you before you even wake up or get yourself orientated. Many with guns at home still get raped or murdered......... With gun laws as they are, the intruder can get a gun as aesily as you can.
Home invasions happen all over the World....... Only difference is that in the USA, home intruders know you could be armed so do the same. It will be a case of who shoots first and the intruder has the edge as he is already in stealth mode and ready to fire before you have even woken up.
Again, when gun crime, and prevented crime due to private gun ownership are near equal, your theory is completely invalidated. If we were to get rid of guns we'd add 1.5 million more victims, not magically evaporate 1.5 million crimes.
Criminals are already able to arm themselves, giving the gun to the homeowner just evens the playing field for those situations and gives them the edge for situations where the criminal is not carrying. The notion that the owners gun will be used against them is further junked, I think the evidence I saw had that figure around 20/yr-ish (memory, not statement of fact).
Iraq signed the Cease Fire Agreement in 1991. In that agreement, it said that the U.S. had the authority to resume military action if the agreement was broken, which it was (the Iraqi army firing at U.S. planes in the no-fly zone, for example). The 1991 Gulf War never really ended; there was just a cease-fire.
That's the argument pulled by the US/UK but according to the UN secretary-general AND the UN charter, the war was viewed as illegal and needed an additional resolution to intervene. The US/UK could not even obtain an OK from the Security Council. The war was illegal. Of course, the proponents of the intervention in Iraq will justify their actions...it doesn't make their argument any more valid. Laws exist for a reason.
Quote:
Also, other countries assisted the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan... were those countries "breaking the law," too?
Yes, they did. The thing is, if these wars involved smaller players, the UN would probably have intervened. But who can stop a US-led coalition? Nobody. Might makes right.
Quote:
But this is not the subject of this thread. I just wanted to correct your error.
There was no error and your correction was misleading. No matter how you slice it or dice it, those two wars are illegal. I wish they were legal so I could sleep better at night, but they aren't.
[quote=Gungnir;17720640]No unfortunately you're wrong with gun control the intruder likely has a lot easier time in getting a gun than a law abiding citizen, if they didn't then explain why handgun crime increased 89% in the UK from 1997 (when handguns were outlawed after Dunblane) to 2007. If gun control worked for Criminals, then please explain
Excluding air weapons, firearm offences decreased by 17% to 8,208
where all the guns come from that are used in crimes in the UK.
In 2008-09 firearms were involved in 0.3% or 1 in every 330 crimes recorded by police in England and Wales
Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive an
Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive annual fall
Overall, firearm offences involving any type of injury were down by 41% in 2008-09, from 4,164 in 2007-08 to 2,458
There were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in 2008-09, the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years
Now look at the up to date facts not fiction.
You do not know the feeling of going home, closing your front door and NOT even giving a thought to anyone invading or coming to your home with a firearm. This is a USA phenomena and it makes people so paranoid that they really cannot see past that you musy "have a gun" to protect yourself Tough gun laws, as can be seen by the above statistics work and they work in many countries throughout the world...well maybe not Beirut or USA.
Two teenagers were shot Saturday night by a 72-year-old man they allegedly beat with a baseball bat during a home-invasion robbery in Ferry Pass.
About 8:45 p.m., three teenage males knocked on the door of a home on the 3300 block of Raines Street, Pensacola Police Department officials said.
When resident Jack Crawford, 72,answered the door, one of the teens hit him in the head with an aluminum bat and tried to force his way into the home.
“I opened it up and he hit me right off. ... Wham! Split my head open,” Crawford said.
“So I shot him and another guy,” Crawford said, chuckling as he told the story to a News Journal reporter Sunday evening. “I could have shot the third one, but I would have had to shoot him in the back as he ran away.”
If he hadn't have had a gun on him, who knows what would have happened. He could have very easily have been a dead man today.
I'm not saying people need huge gun magazines or assault rifles, but for all of those who say there is no need for hand guns, well, explain the above situation for me.
That is one awesome story.
and you are very right.
Another thing is also...there a lot of men in that age bracket who can really handle themselves. My grandfather is in his lower 80s, and is very strong, and i KNOW could whoop up on some people who would think he is just an old man. Its neat hearing these stories of older folks being taken advantage of, and then mopping the floor with someone.
No unfortunately you're wrong with gun control the intruder likely has a lot easier time in getting a gun than a law abiding citizen, if they didn't then explain why handgun crime increased 89% in the UK from 1997 (when handguns were outlawed after Dunblane) to 2007. If gun control worked for Criminals, then please explain
Excluding air weapons, firearm offences decreased by 17% to 8,208
where all the guns come from that are used in crimes in the UK.
In 2008-09 firearms were involved in 0.3% or 1 in every 330 crimes recorded by police in England and Wales
Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive an
Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive annual fall
Overall, firearm offences involving any type of injury were down by 41% in 2008-09, from 4,164 in 2007-08 to 2,458
There were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in 2008-09, the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years
Now look at the up to date facts not fiction.
You do not know the feeling of going home, closing your front door and NOT even giving a thought to anyone invading or coming to your home with a firearm. This is a USA phenomena and it makes people so paranoid that they really cannot see past that you musy "have a gun" to protect yourself Tough gun laws, as can be seen by the above statistics work and they work in many countries throughout the world...well maybe not Beirut or USA.
There were 9,865 firearm offences in 2007/08, a rise of 89 per cent on the 5,209 recorded in 1998/99.
Now the politicians are hand wringing about that stat, but as they say you know when politicians are lying, it's when their lips are moving. Now again why if gun control is the answer was there an announcement of a 18M GBP initiative to fight knife, gun and gang related crime announced this week?
Now if is as claimed about the Telegraph report, that the crimes from 1998/99 were under reported, then it still doesn't show a downward trend from the 1997 Dunblane bans, its a best flat.
If gun control was so effective, then why is there this initiative? Why at best case hasn't gun crime fallen, and why do the statistics show that it seems to be growing? Why also has just general violent crime risen in the past 10 years? You can't point to "Hey out of the past 10 years the last two crime has fallen" and call that a win, because it isn't. It shows that some other factor was involved, or it's merely not statistically relevant there are variances year to year in any population.
Once you do that research you can come back and have an informed argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
