Question about Firearms...

Posted by: darwin

Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 12:42

I'm trying to find out laws about firearms. I've been to packing.org which is a very helpful site about possesion laws and getting permits, etc. It doesn't tell me when I'm allowed to use it though.

Here's the scenario, You're in your bed sleeping and someone breaks into your house. Are you allowed to pull out your licensed hand gun and just shoot them right there? Or do you need to be threatened or shot at first? What makes it okay or 'self defense'?

Reason I bring this up is I got robbed twice in the last week. First time, they ransacked the house and grabbed all the little things (CD's, DVD's, little electronics/gadgets and jewerly). Two days later, they came back for the bigger things and took my 17" Flat LCD monitor, Dolby Stereo System, Xbox, Gamecube and other little crap.

I actually came home the 2nd time they were robbing my house. I drove in my driveway, saw lights on in the house that I left off, and someone standing at the doorway. I called 911, and kept honking my horn over and over to get the neighbor's attention. By the time the cops came 5 minutes later, they all left out the back. I don't think they will come back because they pretty much got everything, but I really want to protect myself in case it were to happen again.


Posted by: jmwking

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:12

My brother got robbed twice. He got a mid-sized dog (Australian Cattle Dog/German Shepard mix). No more problems, and a lot less liability (though not zero liability, mind you) than using a gun.

-jk
Posted by: loren

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:13

Holy crap man. I'm sorry. That's one of the most horrible feelings, being invaded like that... and twice no less. blech.
Posted by: darwin

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:17

yeah, it really feels horrible. I really feel sick, I even lost my appetite which is really unlike me.

I also think they grabbed my 80gb empeg. I can't find it. ugh!
Posted by: mtempsch

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:22

That depends on which state you live in. AFAIK (essentially picked up off various news groups and web boards), in some states you'd be entitled to shoot to protect property, but in others you wouldn't be allowed to unless you were in fear of your life and hade no way to escape.

From what I've heard, the dos and don'ts are well covered in the gun classes that many states require for you to be able to get a CCW permit.

/Michael
Posted by: trs24

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:46

I don't know where you live, but if it's in TX - then Fire Away!!! You can shoot anyone who trespasses.

Sorry to hear about the thefts. I can't imagine how terrifying that would be.

- trs
Posted by: robricc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 13:54

You can shoot anyone who trespasses.
I heard that in TX you can shoot someone in the back as they're running away from you. Is that true?
Posted by: trs24

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:01

If they're on your property, I think you can shoot them wherever you want. Of course, I never researched the validity of that. It's just what everybody told me when I lived there.

The law/requlation I thought was much more interesting, though, was that in Austin, no one is required to wear anything above the waist - male or female. I saw this in action the first weekend I was in Austin (exercised by females). From then on I know that Austin was a magical place.

I'm not sure about gun regulations in NM (where I live now), but I do know that there are a couple of counties here where it's REQUIRED that you carry a firearm by law. I try to stay away from those particular counties.

- trs
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:11

I think you can shoot them wherever you want.
...but only if they hold still.
Posted by: foxtrot_xray

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:14

I'm surprised that every's into shooting the guy in the back and whatnow..

Hell. Just shoot him in the leg. He'll stop, NOT run away, still be alive, so you won't get brought to court for murder..

As far as the self-defence thing, IF you get brought to court, you would have to prove that you were in fact protecting yourself..

Me.
Posted by: genixia

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:24

Hmm. I've read in more than one place that it is better to actually kill them - one point of view is better than two when it comes to litigation. Of course this only applies where shooting in self defence is allowed to begin with.

Posted by: skibum

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:35

When I lived in South Africa it was the same. If you're gonna shoot someone make sure you kill them. Not for the lawsuits, but for the Police paperwork. It's apparently a lot less, as they only have to take 1 statement (yours)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:35

It definitely varies from state to state. In my homestate of Louisiana you'd be legally justified to kill in that situation. What state do you live in?

Some good sites to read about the various laws:
http://www.gunlaws.com/
nra.org
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 14:48

btw - I would recommend a 12 gauge pump shotgun to get the suckers. A pistol is fine, but you can't miss with a 12 gauge, and it will make a bigger mess of their face and is sure to drop them with one hit. Plus a shotgun won't overpenetrate; bullets can go through a window or a wall and hit little suzie sleeping in bed next door. If they're armed with a handgun, you'll have the upperhand with the 12 ga.
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:01

In the UK you're supposed to show them around and point out the places where you hide your wife's irreplaceable jewelery, toss them your car keys then bend over and ask if there's "anything else you'd like" before they leave.

Then, if you can be bothered, file a police report (for insurance purposes only of course).

edit: In the UK you can own a shotgun without a reason (even a SPAS-12 if modified to 3 rounds) and a rifle for certain reasons - eg. target shooting, pest control on land etc. Even an AR-15 in semi-auto is still legal.

Gareth
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:19

Interesting.....I heard it's a pain to get a rifle in the UK but I didn't know anyone could get a shotgun. I read a story a while back about a guy in the UK who went to jail for killing some kid that broke into his house. The shotgun won't do you much good if the laws won't allow you to put it to good use. Granted, I think he shot the guy in the back, so that may have been why he was arrested. What do the laws in the UK allow as far as self-defense goes?
Posted by: darwin

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:20

Thanks for the responses guys. I live in Washington State. Just so you don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to go out and find someone to kill, I'm all about protecting myself. I live by myself at the moment. When I got out this morning to leave to work, I walked all around my house being very paranoid and scared that someone was there watching when I leave. Man, I really haven't been myself lately, I feel like a wuss. My emotions are going nuts because of everything that happened.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:23

Get a dog. A good growly dog. That way they'll know that there's a dog in there. They'll never know about your gun until you confront them, and the dog's got less qualms about biting than you do about shooting.

But, for God's sake, don't train the dog to attack. You'd feel worse if it bit the head off your neighbor's cat, or, worse, baby.
Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:46

personally, i dont like the dog idea. id prefer to shoot the fucker. with a dog in the house, the thief is not going to stick around long enough to get bit, let alone get shot.
Posted by: peter

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 15:56

When I got out this morning to leave to work, I walked all around my house being very paranoid and scared that someone was there watching when I leave. Man, I really haven't been myself lately, I feel like a wuss. My emotions are going nuts because of everything that happened.
At the risk of starting a flamewar, surely that's exactly the mental state in which it's a really bad idea to be toting a lethal weapon? The last thing you want is for the burglar to shoot you in self-defence.

Peter
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:00

I say stand up and fight for what's yours. I'd rather die fighting than to live knowing I didn't try... Don't let these jackasses get away with it. They'll get what's coming to them.
Posted by: msaeger

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:06

I would take a class. I know in minnesota they offer classes you take before getting a conceal and carry permit the cover just this subject.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:19

personally, i dont like the dog idea. id prefer to shoot the fucker. with a dog in the house, the thief is not going to stick around long enough to get bit, let alone get shot.
Wasn't the point to prevent theft?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:19

I would take a class.

I agree. It looks like Washington has a shall-issue policy for concealed carrying, so a permit should be easy to get and the class will be informative, however, he won't need the permit to defend his home from the theives, assuming washington state allows for basic self-defense.
Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:30

Wasn't the point to prevent theft?

the simple presence of a firearm will not prevent the thief from attempting, unless hes aware of said presence. with a dog, hed still get in the house (unless the dog was outside, or there were signs posted) but i think im trying to say : if im going to be there when the thievery is attempted, id prefer taking a huge chunk out of his anatomy over having him run off at the sight of a ferociously non-violent dog and be physically well enough to make future attempts, on myself or someone else.
Posted by: djc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:48

I actually came home the 2nd time they were robbing my house. I drove in my driveway, saw lights on in the house that I left off, and someone standing at the doorway.
How exactly does a firearm help in this situation?

I agree with Bitt. You need a German Shepherd.

--Dan.
Posted by: schofiel

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 16:55

<Admin Note>
At Rob's request, I have removed this post. Rob wishes to apologize to anyone who was offended or hurt by its tone or content.
Posted by: darwin

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:01

In that situation in might not help. I ended up staying in my car waiting for the police. If I had a gun, I could have run up to them and stopped them.

I'm just talking about the future. I would really feel more secure having one and just need to know when it's okay to shoot it without getting assault/murder charges against me.
Posted by: djc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:19

If I had a gun, I could have run up to them and stopped them.
Perhaps, if you had it with you. My thoughts would go something like this:

- Will the gun do any good if it is not with you when you need it? If it's locked in a safe in the basement when you come home to find your house being robbed, is it really helping? To be effective, you'd need to get a permit, and carry said firearm at all times.

- OK, so you happen to have the gun with you when you come home to find a group of men ransacking your house. How do you determine that they don't also have weapons? Is your family with you? Are you willing to put yourself and them at risk while you try to defend your house against an unknown force?

- Perhaps the value of your life, and those that you love, is more important than having to deal with the insurance company over a stolen TV.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just wonder whether that gun will really buy you peace of mind. I live about 200 yards from a Chicago neighborhood that is a poverty-stricken, drug-filled war zone. Some of that leaks over into my neighborhood from time to time, but I would never consider owning a gun. Just too many risks.

I'd still go for the dog. I't always at home, always defending, whether you are or not. Besides, dogs are great in any case.

--Dan.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:19

In reply to:

I actually came home the 2nd time they were robbing my house. I drove in my driveway, saw lights on in the house that I left off, and someone standing at the doorway.




How exactly does a firearm help in this situation?


Cause when you pull the trigger on a gun, it goes bang and shoots a bullet out of the barrel, and if properly aimed it can incapacitate the bad guy leaving him to either die as he ponders whether it really was worth his life to burgarlize people, or it can leave him severely wounded while the police show up and then he can have 15 years in jail to think about it.

So exactly how does this dog thing work?
Posted by: djc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:22

Cause when you pull the trigger on a gun, it goes bang and shoots a bullet out of the barrel, and if properly aimed it can incapacitate the bad guy leaving him to either die as he ponders whether it really was worth his life to burgarlize people, or it can leave him severely wounded while the police show up and then he can have 15 years in jail to think about it.
That 12 gauge you mentioned -- do you take it to the grocery store when you pick up milk?

So exactly how does this dog thing work?
They bark a lot, and scare the crap out of people who might otherwise think about breaking into your house. Then they decide to move on to another, easier target.

--Dan.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:24

but I would never consider owning a gun. Just too many risks.

It just the opposite to me. There is too much risk in NOT protecting your home and family.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:26

That 12 gauge you mentioned -- do you take it to the grocery store when you pick up milk?

No, but it stays in my closet with a box of shells next to it. They better hope they rob me when I'm not home.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:26

I'm just talking about the future. I would really feel more secure having one
This is exactly, precisely, the point that Micheal Moore was trying to make in Bowling for Columbine: In our country, people purchase guns because of fear. Because people think that the world is an unsafe place and that the gun will somehow make them more safe. The problem is the culture of fear, not the guns themselves. The fear is what makes people want to shoot other people.

I'm not trying to make light of your loss, or of your feelings of being violated. I've had my car ripped into twice, so I have experienced some of the same feelings before in my life. Agreed, not nearly on the same scale as you're feeling right now. And it wasn't my home that was broken into. But you have my sympathy for being the victim of a crime, and I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.

I think I'm with Rob. If I were in your shoes, I'd be trying to figure out how to relocate to a less crime-ridden neighborhood rather than trying to buy a gun. Buying a gun means that you're buying into the culture of fear and crime that exists in that neighborhood. You're becoming one of them.

I know that relocation is a difficult thing and it isn't always a viable option for some people, depending on situation and finances. Though events like this tend to make people look longer and harder at what's really important in their lives. Is relocation really impossible, or is it merely inconvenient? Is it more or less inconvenient than having to buy a gun just to feel safe?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:29

They bark a lot, and scare the crap out of people who might otherwise think about breaking into your house. Then they decide to move on to another, easier target.

Yep. I'd rather catch them for good, instead of scaring them off onto someone else, although I do agree that a dog is the best alarm system you can get.
Posted by: djc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:30

No, but it stays in my closet with a box of shells next to it.
That was the point. Darwin came home to find the house being robbed. Unless you've got the gun with you all the time, you might as well not have it.

The vast majority of robberies in my area are when no one is home. See, the burglars have figured out that an empty house is an easier target. Makes sense.

--Dan.
Posted by: davec

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:39

The sound of chambering a round in a 12 ga shotgun has a profound effect on any idiot.

If the perps are in your house and you drive up, don't go in the house. Call the cops. Yes they can get away as in the original post, but you're alive and not worrying about whether or not they are armed.

If you are sleeping, with your trusty 12 ga no more than 3 feet away, and the perps enter and awake you, chamber a round. If it gets to the unfortunate point of having to use the gun, d33zy is right, use something that won't kill your neighbor. I keep my .44 mag with .44 special loads, they'll stop in the perps torso and not kill Junior next door. And shoot to kill, or they'll sue you in America...

Rob's comment about allowed to shoot them in the back in TX, are you referring to one of the first CCW deaths a few years ago? A guy coming back to his vehicle in Austin saw a guy breaking in. He chased him for three blocks and shot him in the back. The perp died, and the CCW guy went to prison, and rightfully so IMO....
Posted by: tracerbullet

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:46

For me, if I came home and saw that, I'd do exactly what he did (honk and such and dial 911 on my cell phone), that or drive right by and still dial 911, hoping to catch them in the cat. I'd never run up on them, gun or not. That's just asking for trouble! Either from them, or afterwards. Property can be repurchased. Lives, mine or theirs, can not.

However - I can see how having a gun on hand might still be nice. Imagine if they'd come back second time and he'd been at home asleep. Maybe they thought he left because the car was gone, when really it was in the shop. So they come in and he wakes up. Then what? Be nice to have a weapon of some sort in case they decide not to run when they realize you're actually at home.

I've pondered this a lot recently as well. I live in a fine neighborhood, about a block from some railroad tracks that separate it from a not-so-good neighborhood. Lots of apartments and sirens a half mile away. I've thought about a shotgun for the reason I mentioned above. I'm asleep one night, and I hear someone walking up the stairs. Hell, I don't actually need a gun, but a device that SOUNDS like a shotgun being pumped or a pistol being cocked. A laser pointer would be cool too, for the effect. If my mom dropped in for a surprise visit she'd scream and let me know it was her. If it was a thief I think they'd run for their lives. It's really all I would want.

I'd pray never to need to use the thing, but sure wouldn't mind having it near where I sleep at night. BTW, I have no kids to worry about using it the wrong way, if I did I might think of something else as a deterrent - which is really what I want. Not a device to kill with, but a device to get someone to leave back out of the house! And one that doesn't have to poop twice a day and get stuck in the kennel when I go out of town. Dogs are best for your neighbors to have, and you to get to play with once in a while.

On a different note, what a drag if they break in while you're gone and steal your gun

---edit---

I was typing while Dave was replying. Same as what he said. Thanks, glad someone feels the same (I think is how I read that).
Posted by: davec

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:52

what a drag if they break in while you're gone and steal your gun

Simple, buy a gun safe, and keep the cheapo 12 ga under the bed for nighttime defense... Besides who'd want to shoot someone with their favorite gun only to have it locked in evidence for years to come?

-edit-
Yes you read it right. I own guns for target shooting, collectors items (M1 Garands) and protection, but I never EVER want the opportunity to actually use it on someone if I can avoid it. But peace of mind is a nice thing, and gun and shooter education is wise.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 17:59

Buying a gun means that you're buying into the culture of fear and crime that exists in that neighborhood. You're becoming one of them.

That is pure BS. So are all cops one of them too? Becoming one of them means stealing, raping, and murdering. Owning a gun doesn't make you a criminal.
Some people's philosophy is to run and hide from criminals, then call the cops and hope they get lucky and catch the perps one day. This only empowers the criminals and makes their job that much more easier. You should stand against and fight people who do wrong instead of just letting them walk all over you and then putting the burden on a few people with a badge to stop them. To do this, you need the right tools. Criminals won't risk their lives to steal your tv. The more armed and honest citizens there are in a community, the safer it will be.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 18:03

I understand completely everything you just said. That mentality is exactly the problem, exactly the reason we live in a country with such a high incidence of firearm deaths.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 18:12

Hopefully most of those deaths are of criminals.

Also, many murders are prevented by people protecting themselves with firearms without firing any shots.
Posted by: pgrzelak

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 18:22

Greetings!

I am sorry to hear about your loss. I do not know what the laws are like in your jurisdiction. You should check with your local police station to see what the laws involving gun permits are. They, or any local rifle club, may also be able to give you a good idea about what it is like to actually use deadly force in your area. Local clubs are also a good place to sign up for training: for instruction in taking care of the weapon, ways to store the gun to prevent accidents and for target practice.

You may also want to research local papers for the last known incident, and find out what happened then.

An important fact, though. Do NOT buy a gun if you are not comfortable in handling one, if you do not get training in how to use it and store it properly, or if you do not intend to use it if confronted. A gun is not a bluff - if you raise a weapon, you must be ready to use it or it will be taken from you and used against you. And being passive in the event of a robbery (armed or not) can still get you killed.

For public record: I am officially a "gun nut". I am a life member of the NRA... I do not own many guns personally, nor did I buy guns out of fear of being robbed or for protection. My father was a hunter, and my brothers and I were all trained in how to use them. I personally am a horrible shot and I do not know how I would react if put into that situation. I hope I never find out.
Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 23:03

I would really feel more secure having one and just need to know when it's okay to shoot it without getting assault/murder charges

I hope you understand that it would be a false sense of security.

If you had had a gun in your car when you came home and encountered the thieves, and had been so foolish as to approach them with it, the chances are very high that you would be dead now.

You think the thieves didn't have guns of their own, and far more motivation to use them than you had to use yours? Not to mention far more skill and experience in their use?

One of the luckiest things in your whole life is that you didn't have a gun,

tanstaafl.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 23:14

> No, but it stays in my closet with a box of shells next to it. They better hope they rob me when I'm not home.

Hey d33zy, you know that stupid bravado and Rambo-like confidence that you will come out in top in a firefight that you have? The criminals have it too. They are not worried about your guns, just like you don't seem to be worried about theirs. There is very little crime prevention value in guns.
Posted by: thrasher

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 23:40

I keep a 9mm in my garage and a 45 in my bedroom.I have kids so I bought mini gun vaults for each gun.there made by a company called gunvault.they have a embeded hand print on top so you can olpen them in the dark in about two seconds.It would have been really nice if you had one in your garage.and if you ever do have to use them shoot to kill or don't shoot at all,you would'nt want them to come back and sue you.and most important tell the cops you feared for your live and did'nt have a choice.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 23:41

you know that stupid bravado and Rambo-like confidence that you will come out in top in a firefight that you have?
You mean balls?

There is very little crime prevention value in guns.
There's very little crime prevention in being a pussy.


I still don't get the liberal logic.......Unarmed equals safe protection? Being armed equals danger! Oh no, I might shoot myself! Or I might make the bad guy mad at me! I'm so scared!
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 09/12/2003 23:44

If you had had a gun in your car when you came home and encountered the thieves, and had been so foolish as to approach them with it, the chances are very high that you would be dead now.

The chances are very high that he'd still have all his shit right now and the theives would be sitting in jail.
Posted by: Chuck

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 00:16

If you know nothing about firearms, please do some research on them and have someone teach you in their use before you become over confident in just having one around. There is a world of difference between having a shotgun close by and carrying a handgun (open or concealed) everywhere. The laws vary from state to state, so check in to your state laws. They are a great tool once you know how to use them and when they are to be used.
Posted by: Chuck

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 00:35

Please do a little more research before you apply such a blanket assumption to a subject. Most criminals do not carry a weapon and the laws make this distinction - ex: 'robbery' vs 'armed robbery'. It is very seldom that someone who is committing a burglary is also armed. If someone brandishes a weapon, you let them have whatever it is they want, objects are easier to replace than your life.

I personally carry a 10mm (a VERY powerful handgun) on my hip and .40 caliber on my ankle, everyday, whether I'm at work or not. That should hint at the line of I've work I'm in. There have been 3 separate cases (in 3 different states) where I wasn't on duty that I can credit being armed with saving my life. I would consider that to be a very large crime prevention value in guns.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 00:41

> There have been 3 separate cases (in 3 different states) where I wasn't on duty that I can credit being armed with saving my life

Wow, you must lead an amazing life to have had three near death experiences. Most people, even cops, never have even one.
Posted by: Chuck

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 00:51

You are incorrect sir; most have more than one experience where their life is threatened. A 'near death experience' is something totally different that people have said to experience.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 01:46

in Austin, no one is required to wear anything above the waist - male or female. I saw this in action the first weekend I was in Austin (exercised by females). From then on I know that Austin was a magical place.
They have a similar law in Ontario, and believe me, the people who always chose to exercise their "right" were not the ones you want to see naked.

/me shudders at the memories.
Posted by: peter

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 02:54

I personally carry a 10mm (a VERY powerful handgun) on my hip and .40 caliber on my ankle, everyday, whether I'm at work or not. That should hint at the line of work I'm in. There have been 3 separate cases (in 3 different states) where I wasn't on duty that I can credit being armed with saving my life.
Let me guess... you're a burglar?

Peter
Posted by: Memil

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 03:27

This whole topic is quite strange for a swedish guy like me...

In sweden no one(except cops) is allowed to carry a handgun in a public place. Guns only allowed in shooting ranges. It is very very uncommon that anyone is being robbed/threatened with a gun(except between the criminal themselfs).

And just talking about shooting people in the back when running??
I can understand a good beating ...

I feel for the ones who had a burglary - but killing people?

But on the other side, in sweden you can be sued if a burglar breaks a leg on your slippery stairs - that sucks.. :-)

Fredrik
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 07:29

That should hint at the line of <sic> work I'm in.

The Mob?

-Zeke

ps: my $0.02 I have to go with d33zy on this one. I don't pack, or keep my weapons under or near my bed, but the logic of being unarmed = safe doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
Posted by: ShadowMan

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 07:45

In reply to:

The sound of chambering a round in a 12 ga shotgun has a profound effect on any idiot




Reminds me of a harrowing experience I had as a teeneger....

Me and a friend decided to get some apples from someones apple tree one night at around 2am. So here we were up high in this huge tree filling our pockets with apples and the back door of the owners house opens. We froze immediately. This guy started yelling at us to get out of there and we were ever so careful not to make a noise. He then sings out to his wife to get him his shotgun. We both jumped and ran for our lives. I somehow never got a scratch or bruise. I jumped from a height of about 20 feet, going through the branches of the tree with no care for myself, ran through a few more feet of densly packed undergrowth and found my motorcycle and took off. The whole time I was wondering where my friend had disappeared. I shut off the bike and hid a little ways away.... about 2 hours later my friend show up, coming out of the trees limping and bleeding from every limb he has. He ran the wrong way and just went deeper and deeper into the woods. I laughed the whole way home.

I don't own guns, my keys are always left in my truck and often left in my car and suv. The suv (a CR-V) has remote power locks so she gets locked most of the time (it's so easy) but my car and truck are almost never locked (unless I am out of town). I live in a community of about 800 with the closest community being about 30 minutes away and only having a population of 800. It's sometimes nice to live in the boonies. Hardly ever a break-in, and when there is the fucknut is always caught.
Posted by: lopan

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 07:50

I still don't get the liberal logic
Don't drag politics into this... I'm liberal, I say shoot him, make sure you kill him or else you'll get sued.

Being liberal doesn't make you a pussy, just smarter
Posted by: Chuck

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 08:29

<wipes off monitor>

Thanks for that great start to the morning. It's going to be a wonderful day.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 08:42

After reading all of the previous comments, I just have to jump in with another of my overlong posts:

First thing right away: I do not own a gun, nor can I ever see myself owning one. Short of getting into the military and being physiologically prepared/altered (or whatever) to kill another human being, I don’t think I could pull the trigger. The exception to this might be in the case where my wife was being raped or murdered, but even at that I see it very unlikely that I would actually have a gun available, loaded, and the chance to aim with a steady hand. I also don’t live in an area where I feel particularly vulnerable. A gun in my house would definitely be a more dangerous addition than it would be worth.

Having said all that, I do think a person should have the right to protect his or her property, and at gunpoint if necessary. That is NOT to say that stuff should be valued over a person’s life. That IS saying that the right of ownership and a feeling of security is more important than the possibility a criminal might get hurt. By entering a home to take something that belongs to another person, a criminal has already decided that the stuff in question is worth risking his or her life AND that the homeowner’s sense of security is of very little value. This was the choice of the criminal, not the homeowner. The homeowner’s decision is what steps are acceptable to protect his or her sense of security. Ultimately it would be great if the police could do this job, and sometimes they can, but there really is no substitute for a people being able to protect themselves and their property.

And while it sounds good to say that a sense of security should not be valued over a human life, the bottom line is that a personal feeling of security is that important in this culture. That is why we have laws concerning ownership, property, and trespassing. If the police had arrived at Darwin’s house before the criminals got out, they most certainly would have been carrying guns and willing to use them if necessary to protect Darwin’s sense of security. The real question is not whether a sense of security is worth protecting at gunpoint; it is whether this is a function that must be carried out by the police or whether the individual has this responsibility. Of course this is an ethical question with many different viewpoints, and the result is states and countries with different laws on the subject. But I think it’s safe to say that society has deemed a sense of security worth protecting at the risk of violence.

As far as the whole “buying into the fear,” thing, I think the point is being missed. In Darwin’s case he’s buying into the fear because the fear is real. There is no reward for pretending a danger doesn’t exist when, in fact, it does. There is no question that people are willing and able to violate his sense of security and take from him stuff that is not theirs. The only question (again) is to what extent he can go to protect himself. The idea of moving is the best one all around, and I am very glad that I live in a place where I don’t consider this violation to be a question. But increasingly this is becoming more difficult to find in today’s world. People ARE violent and people ARE willing to violate others to get what they want.

The last thing I have to say, though, is the most important: the ultimate solution is not more guns, and if we ever believe that it is we really are in trouble (this, in fact, may be exactly Moore’s point, and if so I can agree). I think the problem is that we don’t have a good solution, or at least not one that everyone will embrace. There will always be people who will take advantage of each other and no real way to motivate them not to. People have tried to fix the problem of human sin by punishment, eradication, looking for the best in others, along with a host of other methods, but to this point all have failed. I personally believe the only hope humanity ever has of finding true peace is found in Jesus and the working of the Holy Spirit within our lives, and that is why I labor to try and convince people of my faith. However, my personal beliefs aside, we are in trouble, the answer is not more guns (though I do think weapons can and are used for protection), and collectively we do not have a good solution.
Posted by: ithoughti

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 09:08

btw - I would recommend a 12 gauge pump shotgun to get the suckers. A pistol is fine, but you can't miss with a 12 gauge, and it will make a bigger mess of their face and is sure to drop them with one hit. Plus a shotgun won't overpenetrate; bullets can go through a window or a wall and hit little suzie sleeping in bed next door. If they're armed with a handgun, you'll have the upperhand with the 12 ga.


Very good point I totally agree. Also you dont have to aim, which is hard for people to do if they dont like killing folks
Posted by: phaigh

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 09:30

Ever wonder what the phsycological impact on the householder is when they kill someone trying to burgle them? I don't think that much of the bravado being bandied around on here is going to stop that haunting you for the rest of your life.

Look at veterans from the various wars over the years, they've seen enough killing and bloodshed to affect them for the rest of their lives - and that was with a reasonable cause/reason (at least to them), is protecting your stuff worth that?

Can't say that I'd ever want to be in that position.

Paul.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 09:43

Truth.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 11:08

Look at veterans from the various wars over the years, they've seen enough killing and bloodshed to affect them for the rest of their lives
I have to disagree. Many many veterans I know have no qualms about what they have done or seen. I dare sat that most of the veterans that have a problem with what they have seen and done have been veterans that were fighting in the viet-cong. This was only an issue because they were fighting a terribly ruthless people in which not only able bodied men were doing the fighting, but also women and children. I have heard man horror stories of a 4 year old vietnamese child walking up to an american camp with a bomb strapped to its chest. What do you do? Shoot an infant? If it means protecting yourself, you have to. These are unfortunate situations that no man should ever have to deal with.

On another note, I personally carry a gun. I have never been threatened except once when I wasn't sure whether I was being threated or not. The situation was late one night when I was in downtown New Orleans. On my way home I saw a guy that was bleeding from the arm. I pulled over, let him in, and drove him to the hospital. Now, this guy was easily twice my size. (not hat, as I'm a skinny little guy) Needless to say, at two o'clock in the morning, If I were unarmed, I would never have let a stranger in my car. As it were, as soon as he got in, I pulled out my pistol and layed it on the seat to my left. This way, he knows I'm armed and is much less likely to try something he shouldn't. Odds are, he wouldn't have anyway, since as a rule, I have more faith in people than that. But the fact remains that there is still a chance that something COULD happen, and it's a risk that 99% of people are NOT willing to take. Ever wonder why you see so few hitchhikers any more? I doubt it's because people have better access to cars. It's just not worth the risk anymore.
Posted by: phaigh

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 13:32

In reply to:

Many many veterans I know have no qualms about what they have done or seen.



Whilst I can't argue with your experience with vererans, I don't believe that this is generally the case. I'll freely admit that I don't know a lot of War veterans, WW2 or otherwise, be certinaly the ones that I have spoken to, family members on the whole, appear fine, but a small amount of prompting brings back memories that are sheer horror. At least one memebr of my family had consistance and recurrant nightmares up until he died several years ago. That's nearly 50 years of nightmares, and he wasn't even one of the men who discovered the 'Final Solution' in Germany.


In reply to:

I dare say that most of the veterans that have a problem with what they have seen and done have been veterans that were fighting in the viet-cong.



This makes it sound like you think that WW2 was a walk in the park.

In reply to:

This was only an issue because they were fighting a terribly ruthless people in which not only able bodied men were doing the fighting, but also women and children. I have heard man horror stories of a 4 year old vietnamese child walking up to an american camp with a bomb strapped to its chest. What do you do? Shoot an infant? If it means protecting yourself, you have to. These are unfortunate situations that no man should ever have to deal with.



Which is really rather the point that I was making. I don't want to be in the situation to have to make that choice, although the chances of someone wanting to blow me up in a non-war situation is extremely small.

Having a gun in your hands just allows you to make life/death choices against other people - I don't want to *ever* be in a situtation where I can choose, or not, the life or death of another human. Not ever, not even in a court (thankfully the UK has no death sentences any more, except for High Treason and Piracy).

As for your story about the guy in the car - imagine you are him. And you are just wounded. You are hitchhiking because you are scared/injured (as he was)/whatever. I don't think that you pulling a gun on him stopped him attacking you, it probably just scared the crap out of him. I know that I'd have been scared stupid. I'm not convinced that if he was a nutter who was tricking you and wanted to kill/rape/whatever you, that the gun on thepassenger seat would have bothered him in the slightest.

Net effect of having a gun in that situation, you scared an innocent man.

Well worth it.

Anyway, we're never going to agree on this issue - you stick with guns and Gun crime and I'll stay over here in Blighty with fewer guns and fewer gun deaths, thanks.

Cheers,

Paul.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 14:22

I don't think that you pulling a gun on him stopped him attacking you

I don't think he said he pulled a gun on him, but rather just made the gun visible.

Having a gun in your hands just allows you to make life/death choices against other people - I don't want to *ever* be in a situtation where I can choose, or not, the life or death of another human.

Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrasy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they goto the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.

Posted by: Neutrino

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 15:01

Interesting thread. Talk is cheap. I don't know that anyone can really know how he or she might react in a hostile situation, until you've actually been there. I also live in Washington. I have a CWP. It was very easy to get. The only reason why I got one was so I wouldn't have to wait to pick up a handgun when I bought it. If I see a gun I like I can take it home right when I buy it. No waiting period. Needless to say I am a firearm buff. I am not going to go into detail on my collect but I have a few. Even though I have an arsenal at home I would NEVER choose to pick up a weapon unless my life or the lives of those in my home were at risk. I think you did the right thing by staying in your car and honking your horn. That was smart. I own nothing that is worth the life of another human being. There have been some comments in this thread that speak of pulling a weapon instead of being a pussy. I think they have it backwards. I have never been in a situation where the presence of a gun saved my life but I believe I have been in a situation where the presence of my brain did. Using deadly force is a last resort and should be used only if there is no other way to save your life and you had better be sure because you will have to live with your choice, forever. Exclusive of law enforcement, military, and those unfortunate few who find themselves in terrible situations the use of a firearm against another human being is simply not an option and should not be considered. In more cases than not the brandying of a weapon elevates the risk factor not the other way around. Well, thats my opinion and thats all it is, take it or leave it.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Question about Firearms... - 10/12/2003 15:25

I don't think he said he pulled a gun on him, but rather just made the gun visible.
Bingo. I never pointed it anywhere near him, just made it known that I'd protect myself should the need arise. As to whether it would or wouldn't stop someone trying to harm me, I think in fact that it certainly would. It would me if I were going to try something. Ever wonder why there are so many crimes against women and the elderly? It's because criminals go for targets that are least likely to show resistance. If you WERE the nefarious type, who would YOU go after? Someone that looks frail or a biker type with a .45 hanging on his belt?
Posted by: phaigh

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 03:32

In reply to:


Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrasy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they goto the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.



Er, yeah. Precisely my point. I want the people who are trained in weapons handling, and understand the nature of the situations that they put themselves in to be responsible. Absolutely couldn't agree more.

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

The idea of people in the general public making that sort of choice scares me stupid. Most of the Joe Public I know have trouble driving properly, I don't want to know what sort of insane decisions they are going to make with a lethal weapon in their hand.

Can you really say that most/all/any of the people who own guns in the US are correctly and properly trained in both the usage of the weapon and have the mental faculties or training to cope with making the right choice when deciding wether or not to kill someone?

I also think that there is a world apart from hunting and the way that meat ends up in the shop. That's a absurd comparison.

In reply to:

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.



No, that's incorrect. Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house? They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason. You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

Also, refer back to the original part of this thread, some people were talking about killing people in their house, no discussion, no thought, BAM. That's a really scary attitude.

IIRC, that d33zY, you were the one showing off your Uzi's in another thread as well, so I suspect that we'll just have to agree to differ.

Paul.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 03:56

Ever wonder what the psychological impact on the householder is when they kill someone trying to burgle them?

Well, I can tell you the psychological impact it had on at least one person.

When I was younger I worked at a family-owned go-kart track out on the beach a couple of summers. I got to be good friends with the owners and towards the end of my second summer the owner related this story to me.

This occurred during the time that his wife was pregnant with their son, who is close to my age, putting these events around 1980. I don't remember the reason he told me, but they were going to have to make a large cash deposit the next day (money from the business) and it had to go home with them that night. This was several thousand dollars back in 1980, so quite a bit of money. His brother, concerned for his safety, loaned him his hand gun for the evening.

They were awoken that night by noises from downstairs. A group of men were attempting to break into the house. My boss got downstairs just as they got the back door open. He threw his weight against the door but since there were several of them on the other side he knew he was fighting a loosing battle. He hollered out "I have a gun! I'm going to shoot through the door!" They continued to push, so he unloaded his gun through the door. The burglars fled, all except one, who was lying dead in the doorway.

The cops came, he was taken downtown for questioning, but let go by the next morning. They said it was cut and dried self defense. The burglars had been armed with knives and at least the dead one had had drugs in his system.

My boss told me that to this day he can still see the kid's dead face staring up at him (the one he killed was about 17). He said he wasn't at all proud of what he had had to do. He never wanted to kill anyone.

"But my wife and yet to be born son were upstairs. I wasn't worried about the money, though undoubtedly that’s why they were there. I'm glad my brother loaned me that gun that day. I don't regret pulling that trigger. I'd do it again if I had to."

So yes, you may be haunted for the rest of your life, but how much more would you be haunted if your wife and kids were killed and you had done nothing about it?

In response to the case in point, a friend of mine caries his gun in a safe under the seat of his truck, it would have been well in place to be used. As far as the point that if he had had a gun he would have been dead, I think the point that most robberies aren’t armed ones is a valid one. More importantly however it has been hammered upon over and over (especially by d33zY) that if you have a gun you should be trained to use it. How many criminals do you know that get trained to use a gun? If he had had a gun and the proper training that day, I think he would be very much alive right now and possibly have more of his stuff.

Can't say that I'd ever want to be in that position.

Of course. Nobody ever wants to be in that position. But sometimes you don’t have a choice in the matter.

I think a lot of good points have been raised here. I admit that people that feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth scare me a bit (I do know many people who don’t feel a need to however, they just enjoy firearms). On the other hand, people who encourage us to just bend over and take it from the criminals frighten me much more.

I would own a gun except I currently live on a college campus where you can’t have any weapons.
Posted by: m6400

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 04:22

I'm not trying to start a flame-war. Honest. phaigh, this is not a personal attack against you, I just happen to disagree with your ideas. I will do my best to discuss them in a civilized manner.

Yeah, you just place that burden on a few brave people who work for the police. This is the same sort of hypocrisy with people who condemn hunting because of animal cruelty then they go to the supermarket to buy some fresh meat. You just don't want to get your hands dirty.

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

Joe Public.

By "law in the country" I take you to mean "law of the country". Until every individual makes it his or her responsibility to uphold the law of the land (not their personal laws) there can be no peace, no effective government. No matter how many trained police you throw at it, it just isn't going to work.

By this I mean that every citizen should understand and follow the law themselves, and not stand idly by as others break it. This does not mean that Joe Public can use deadly force whenever he wants, this is why specific laws are set up detailing when and where he can use deadly force.

OTOH, I think the comparison of hunting is a poor one. The two situations are nothing alike; people buy their own food because not everybody has time to hunt.

And by the way, I won't be making the life or death choice if someone breaks into my house. The thief will make that choice for himself.

No, that's incorrect. Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house? They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason. You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

I think this is mostly covered in the example I posted above. However, YES, it WAS the choice of the thief. What he WANTS is irrelevant, I'm sure he didn't want to (actually I'm not sure, but that’s another discussion). The point of the matter is that the choice still lies with the thief.

you are the one deciding if they live or die.

Let’s turn this around. Suppose I said "You are the one deciding if you and the people you love live or die." What is The Right Thing To Do then? Should you and your family die because obviously the thief didn't want to break into your home, so he should get to do what he wants?

I'm sorry; the choice lies with the thief.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 04:41

Ask yourself this, who do you want to uphold the law in your country - the Police force (committed, trained experts in this stuff), or Joe Public? You seem to be advocating some sort of Anarchy.

It's not anarchy, but it's the natural right of every man to defend his own life, family, and property.


Can you really say that most/all/any of the people who own guns in the US are correctly and properly trained in both the usage of the weapon and have the mental faculties or training to cope with making the right choice when deciding wether or not to kill someone?

It's not rocket science learning how to operate a gun. However, of course there will be people who can't handle a gun a safely or make the best decisions, but it's a guaranteed right for anyone to own a weapon here unless they abuse that right. People make bad decisions in all aspects of life. That's why we have hobos, drug addicts, and theives, which is also why Joe Average needs a piece to protect his shit.

The divisions here aren't so much about guns as they are about a wider philosophy. Gun rights are all about empowering individuals and giving individuals basic rights. The other side is all about empowering an elite few to rule over and protect the rest. I bet 90% of all the anti-gun people here also want higher taxes, bigger government, and ideally a socialist system of goverment. On the other hand, like Thoreau, I feel that the government that governs least is the best government.



Do you think that the thief WANTS to break into your house?

What, are most theives being forced against their will to rob someone?

They obviously feel that it's worth the risk for whatever reason.

That's their choice.

You are the one pointing a gun at them, you are the one deciding if they live or die. You have the choice.

It's the criminal's choice to commit a crime. It's the criminal's choice to put up a fight when someone tries to stop them. It's my right to fight back, to the death if necessary, rather than be a victim. By your logic, it was the Allies' fault that WWII occured. After all, it was the US's choice to fight back. It was the NL's and Britain's and France's choices to fight the germans (well maybe not france). They should have just given the Axis what they wanted and everything would have been ok. No war, but no justice either.

Would you say that a police officer has the right to kill if attacked? If so, then what is the difference between a man with a badge and Carl the fucking brick layer? Oh yeah, the cop is properly trained on how to operate the gun. I forgot the average person is too dumb to figure out how to work a slide, trigger, and safety.

There are laws against misusing firearms, just as there are laws on everything else. Laws don't stop dishonest people. Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding citizens. Let me put it this way........ Let's say 1% of the population consists of criminals. Let's also say that being armed with a gun makes a person ten times more "powerful". Let's also say that the ratio of the "power" of honest people to the "power" of dishonest people is a direct correlation to a crime rate. If guns are banned, then that 99% honest will be disarmed. Let's say the 1% criminals remains armed, making them ten times as strong. So the "power ratio" will be 99:10. Let's say the criminals are mostly disarmed as well. the power ratio will then be 99:1. Now, let's say everyone and their mama is armed to the teeth. The ratio will be 999:10, or simplified to 99:1. Obviously, the objective is to arm as many honest people as possible and disarm as many criminals as possible, so the ratio can get closer to 999:1. More guns equals less crime.

I'm going off on wild tangents, but I'm tired. I doubt anyone managed to read this far and stay awake, and if you did, you probably skipped the middle to just read the last few sentences, you bastard.

you were the one showing off your Uzi's in another thread as well

It's not an Uzi, although I would like one.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 04:51

Thanks for the story and your comments. It was very insightful. I wish I had the patience and state of mind to state things so eloquently. You basically just said what I'm trying to say.
Posted by: phaigh

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 05:41

Yes, all good points, I can clearly see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, so I'm going to let this lie right here, but I have one final parting question...

In reply to:

More guns equals less crime.




Why is it then that the US has the highest Gun Death total in the world then?

In the UK we have, on average around 100 deaths to guns per year.

In the US that number is in the region of 10,000 deaths to guns per year.

(Numbers remembered from Bowling for Columbine).

?

Paul.

PS:
In reply to:

I'm going off on wild tangents, but I'm tired. I doubt anyone managed to read this far and stay awake, and if you did, you probably skipped the middle to just read the last few sentences, you bastard.



Thanks for the first laugh I've had in this thread...
Posted by: Jerz

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 05:53

Of course if you lived in Kennesaw Georgia you would be required to own a gun.
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

There are some very interesting statistics as well from a more applicable case study:
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

And of course you could search google



Posted by: m6400

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 06:10

I can clearly see that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, so I'm going to let this lie right here, but I have one final parting question...

Couple points on that:
  1. When you take their difference in population into account the number of people killed is a percent of a percent. The difference isn't nearly so great either.
  2. You would also need to look at the number of people killed by weapons other than guns.
  3. You would also need to look at why the people were killed, specificly in relation to the crime rate. It could be that alot of criminals are being killed by guns in America because of situations like the one I described.
  4. I would be more interested in seeing the number of violent murders comitted with some sort of weapon. I think this would bring the numbers much closer.
  5. I don't agree with d33zY's statment above. Edit: Show me more statistics like the one above and I might though.

Not exactly answering your question, I know, just trying to point out that the scope of it is much bigger than your pointing out.

On that note I'm going to step down for the night and let a few others take up the discussion.
Posted by: Neutrino

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 08:14

"Let’s turn this around. Suppose I said "You are the one deciding if you and the people you love live or die." What is The Right Thing To Do then? Should you and your family die because obviously the thief didn't want to break into your home, so he should get to do what he wants? "

You have some good points. However, I don't believe the premise of this thread was if you should protect yourself in a life threatening situation. I think it has already been established in this thread that most of us believe that home robbers generally are not armed. Do you feel that you are morally justified to use deadly force on an unarmed man? There are so many unknowns in these situations. Maybe the guy is totally down and out and stealing for food. I'm not saying he made the right choice not everyone is running on all 8 cylinders. Maybe the guy is just drunk and mistakenly walked into the wrong house (this has happened). Regardless of what I'm seeing here I can not believe that any of you would do this. The members of this board are just to smart to think that thier material possesions are worth a life.

Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 08:33

yes, but its the unknowns that will get you killed. it really is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
if some guy busts through my door i will yell at him to get out, i dont care if hes drunk, drugged, down on his luck and needing to take a [censored], whatever. if i have clearly made it a point that he is not wanted in my residence and he decides to ignore it, im letting something else do the talking. and he wont feel good. i dont care what his story is.
true, maybe afterwards i will feel bad, regret it, or whatever. but that will not change the fact that i considered what i was doing to be right at the time. none of us can afford to live in the past and dwell on mistakes.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 09:38

Outlawing guns only disarms the law-abiding citizens.
I'd just like to point out that you're the first person in this thread to bring up the subject of outlawing guns.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 13:12

this book is considered to be the most comprehensive study on the relation of gun control to crime. I would read it before you just automatically assume that more guns are the cause of crime.



This is from the NRA website, regarding gun control vs crime rate:
Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's murder rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders--and all firearm murders--in the city were committed with handguns.1

Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and murders with handguns continued to rise. Its registration system in place, Chicago imposed a D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982, and over the next decade the annual number of handgun-related murders doubled.2

California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault weapons" in 1989 and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in 1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual murder rate has averaged 32% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of firearms even between family members and friends, yet for the last decade its murder rate has averaged 44% higher than the rate for the rest of the country, and its robbery rate has averaged highest among the states.

The overall murder rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership--California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.--is 8% higher than the rate for the rest of the country.

New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating to firearms nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the national murder rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law, 75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years after that.



Posted by: lectric

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 13:13

Unfortunately, that's because many of us that wish to retain the right to carry a firearm are feeling the ability to do so slipping away. Since I feel that it is my right, as per our constitution, to own a gun I'm willing to fight tooth and nail against anybody that wants to take away my right to do so. For that matter I'm pretty well willing to fight anybody when I feel ANY of my rights begin to slip, and believe me, they're starting to slip ever and ever faster in this country.

In other words, when people start talking about "never having a need for a gun" I, too, skip immediately to the assumption that said people would just as soon see them outlawed. Besides, since when are guns the only thing that criminals use to kill, rape, and steal? What's next, hunting knives? Kitchen Knives? Rope? People with big hands? I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun, unless you run up on someone with a gun.

On another tangent, never in the history of mankind has one group of people harming another group ever been stopped by anything short of more violence.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 13:44

I think Martin Luther King and Gandhi would be interested in your theories.

In all honesty, I've thought about it a good deal, and I don't think that banning firearms would work in the US where it might work in other countries. There are significant geographical and cultural differences that mean it wouldn't work.

At the same time, I cannot come up with any good reason for anyone to own a fully automatic firearm.
Posted by: lectric

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 14:06

Well, for one, the ability for the populace to be able to overthrow the government if the need should ever arise. Granted, an Uzi will do little against a missile, but if there were enough people upset that an actual overthrow were possible, I'd rather have a full auto than a sharp stick. Besides, what's the point in banning them? As long as the police and military can get them, so could any crook. Not to mention, automatic rifles are very very rarely used in an actual crime. (Except in the movies) Pistols are MUCH easier to conceal and they can kill you just as dead.

Don't get me wrong, I have very little use for an automatic, but if I ever do, I'd like to think I could get one. Besides, automatics are MUCH more difficult to handle unless you've been trained. I'd just as soon go up against a random thug with a machine gun as one with a .45. Believe me, I've shot a few auto's, and it is NOTHING like the video games. I know what to expect and I STILL can't keep the thing level. Even on three round bursts. The first shot may hit the target, but the rest are in the big dirt pile behind it.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 14:23

Well, for one, the ability for the populace to be able to overthrow the government if the need should ever arise.
If that's your best answer, I really think you've just made Bitt's point. If it ever comes to that needing to overthrow the government, I doubt gun laws are going to be much of an issue.

While I think people should have the right to own guns here, I have no problem with restricting what guns people can own, and I certainly have no problem with a waiting period or other measures that promote safe and informed use of firearms.
Posted by: ninti

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 15:09

> I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun

You're kidding, right?
Posted by: loren

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 15:14

You're kidding, right?

When we had a special forces training officer here at work for reference for the game i'm working on, he told us that stats for knife wounds vs. gun wounds. It was some really surprising number... WAY more people die from knife wounds than gun inflicted wounds... according to him at least. Who knows what the real stats are. He said he'd rather a knife than a gun in close quarters. But he did seem a little whacko.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 17:11

Well, they say charge a gun and run from a knife.
Posted by: djc

Re: Question about Firearms... - 11/12/2003 19:06

For that matter I'm pretty well willing to fight anybody when I feel ANY of my rights begin to slip, and believe me, they're starting to slip ever and ever faster in this country.
Agreed. The current administration has been running a bit wild, eh?

--Dan.
Posted by: gbeer

K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 01:15

>>> I mean really, it's just as easy to kill someone with a knife as with a gun

>>You're kidding, right?

Knives vs Firearms:
Actually, knives, on the whole, are deadlier than guns. They produce wounds with massive blood loss. Very hard to stop that kind of thing. Guns on the other hand, are deadly, but only if a vital organ is hit. Heart, lungs, cns, major artery. Most other places you get an injury that can be survived.

I would point out that in the US carrying a conceiled gun is a misdameaner, while a conceiled deadly knife is a felony.

fact mode off now.
Posted by: ninti

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 02:18

It is ludicrous that people are actually arguing this. I mean completely insane. Yeah, you grab a knife and I grab a gun and let us see who is more likely to survive. I am sure the armed forces of the world will bow to your superior logic and get rid of guns and equip all their armies with knives from now on because they are so much more effective.

> They produce wounds with massive blood loss.

Yeah, that makes complete sense. A clean knife wound that goes a couple of inches into your body will produce more blood loss than hole bored entirely through your body by a fragmenting shell is it richochets around your body and leaves a big gaping exit wound on the other side.

I think your "fact mode" is a little faulty. Time Magazine, for instance, states that bullet wounds are 7 times more likely to be be fatal as knife wounds ( http://www.time.com/time/reports/heroes/dropguns3.html ). Not to mention it is a LOT harder to inflict them.

Edit: You know, the funny thing is that I am not nearly as anti-gun as I appear sometimes on here. It just that the silly arguments that some pro-gun people spout are just so insane and illogical it drives me nuts, and the macho posturing that you frequently see associated with the pro-gun camp is also very annoying to me. There are plenty of good arguments on the pro-gun side, but this is not one of them.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 10:16

It just that the silly arguments
On the same token, and I'm sure you were exaggerating, but I'll just point out that knives are obviously not very good ranged weapons, due to accuracy, distance, and expendability problems.

Also, it's not like most guns we're talking about here are being shot at enough distance and enough velocity without enough rifling to actually cause the bullet to tumble and explode like would be required in the wound you're describing.
Posted by: muzza

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:05

Is the "problem" with guns and violence in the US caused by the Amendment itself? Other countries appear to have similar access to guns but the gun related crime rate does not appear to be as high. This tends to imply that because people are able to state that it is a right for them to own a gun because the country's founding laws/preambles say that they should.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:21

No. There are certainly a number of people who tout that as the reason they don't want to give up their weapons, but, in all honesty, these are probably also the people who best know how to handle guns, other than the true whackjob few.

The biggest problem is probably unrestricted access to guns. There's no requirement that a person who purchases a gun from a licensed dealer do anything to sell it to someone else. I'm sure it'd be illegal for them to sell it to a felon, but pretty much anything else goes. So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person. There are more laws restricting the sale of cars.

I believe the reason that England, for example, works well in banning handguns is that it's hard to get one at all, I'm guessing because those laws have been in place long enough for the guns not to proliferate and that it's geographically small enough to effectively control distribution. On the other hand, the US was born in gun violence and the populace has come to expect that they exist. I also feel like the wide open spaces of the US has something do do with the mindset of the people that live there, too. Of course, that doesn't explain all the gun violence in the big, crowded cities.

Eh, what do I know? I lost my train of thought, at any rate.
Posted by: ninti

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:43

> I'll just point out that knives are obviously not very good ranged weapons, due to accuracy, distance, and expendability problems.

Damn straight. You have to get in close, giving your opponent more time to prepare (or run away). Not to mention that it takes some skill or luck to kill someone with a knife. A gun requires a lot less of either.

> it's not like most guns we're talking about here are being shot at enough distance and enough velocity without enough rifling to actually cause the bullet to tumble and explode like would be required in the wound you're describing.

Well, I can not claim to be an expert on ballistics, but I was under the impression that a bullet is quite likely to change direction inside of a body, and that a fragment is quite likely to happen if it hits a bone. Perhaps I am wrong and it is more likely just to bore right through you in a straight line, but I still think I proved my point.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:47

Unless I remember incorrectly, only high velocity fairly small caliber rounds have enough force to actually get though a body. Most handgun rounds pretty much stop shortly after entering the body, thus preventing the type of damage you're referring to.

Again, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm too lazy to do research right now. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:53

Is the "problem" with guns and violence in the US caused by the Amendment itself?
I don't think so. I think I agree with Micheal Moore's conclusion that the problem is the culture of fear and paranoia we've nurtured here. We're so afraid that we're going to get robbed or raped or murdered, that we're all on the edge and just itching to use lethal force to defend ourselves against an imagined enemy. In a country where everyone feels that way, is there any wonder that a lot of people actually do it?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 16:55

I've not seen the movie. I probably should.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying about the culture of fear, how does that relate to the school shootings? I ask because the title and the thesis should be ... I don't know ... related to each other.
Posted by: tfabris

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 17:04

The entire film is not about the columbine shootings specifically. It's about guns in america in general.
Posted by: JeffS

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 17:16

Eh, what do I know? I lost my train of thought, at any rate.
Well I think you were making some good points . . . specifically this one:
The biggest problem is probably unrestricted access to guns. There's no requirement that a person who purchases a gun from a licensed dealer do anything to sell it to someone else. I'm sure it'd be illegal for them to sell it to a felon, but pretty much anything else goes. So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person. There are more laws restricting the sale of cars.
I think owning a gun is a fundamental American right, but that doesn't mean we should be braindead about the process.
Posted by: lectric

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 21:03

I also agree... I see no problems in requiring something as simple as a record of transfer be filed. It seems to follow that the owner of a gun be as responsible for what happens with it as much as a person who owns a car.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 21:58

So I could conceivably buy a gun, getting the permit and waiting however long the law requires and then go the next day and sell it to some other person.

Keep in mind it depends on which state you live in. About half of the states allow private transfers, the rest require a record of the transfer including North Carolina. All guns being sold across state lines are supposed to go through federally licensed dealers.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 22:01

Give me my sig back, please.


And I'm not talking about my signature. I'm talking about my Sig Sauer so I can blow your fucking brains out with it.
Posted by: drakino

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 12/12/2003 23:27

Give me my sig back, please.

You have lost your rights to a signature for a while. It's now blank. Watch some of your comments on the board, and you will get it back sooner.

edit- Just to clarify. This was not done because of Yz33d's participation in this discussion. This was done as a result of his signature, and some other comments in a few other threads recently.
Posted by: thrasher

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 13/12/2003 00:44

thats f'in funny
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 13/12/2003 02:56

haha... you hitler loving communist!

Please change my title, too.
Posted by: andy

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 13/12/2003 06:11

I believe the reason that England, for example, works well in banning handguns is that it's hard to get one at all, I'm guessing because those laws have been in place long enough for the guns not to proliferate and that it's geographically small enough to effectively control distribution

I'm not sure that that is true. We are always being told by the media here in the UK that is is very easy to buy a hand gun illegally for a few hundred pounds.

I imagine part of the reason we don't have a high level of gun crime in the UK is because the police don't normally carry them (they do have armed response units that can be called upon when the come up against a criminal with a gun). I'm not claiming that the US police could put away their guns and gun crime would stop, that is clearly nonsense.

It is difficult to see how the US can ever get from the situation it is in now with gun crime to a situation like we have in Europe. The US started with guns everywhere (at least that is how Hollywood tells us it was), which is very different to how Europe got started.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: K vs F was: Question about Firearms... - 13/12/2003 09:46

Well, I should have been more emphatic about it being a theory. I've never even been to England, not that a short trip would give me a good idea anyway.

Regardless, there's a huge difference between the cultures of the US and the UK in regards to guns, whatever the reason. Just the fact, as you point out, that cops in the UK don't carry guns but that that same idea would be ridiculous in the US is strong proof of this.