ARF ARF......Your Not A Comedian Hillary

[Revoltingest]

The US crime figures obviously back that fact up.....don't they??

I don't know of any survey of defense against property crime.
There would be a lotta problems with analyzing it.
But I'm all for hang'n horse thieves.....except that it should be a lengthy prison sentence now....& rehabilititatitiationan for juveniles.
(Some words are hard to spell.)

 

[Mycroft]

I don't know of any survey of defense against property crime.
There would be a lotta problems with analyzing it.
But I'm all for hang'n horse thieves.....except that it should be a lengthy prison sentence now....& rehabilititatitiationan for juveniles.
(Some words are hard to spell.)

Or just shooting them, apparently.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or just shooting them, apparently.

I prefer threatening to shooting.
I'm also not above pointing at their private area & mocking it.

 

[Altfish]

I don't know of any survey of defense against property crime.
There would be a lotta problems with analyzing it.
But I'm all for hang'n horse thieves.....except that it should be a lengthy prison sentence now....& rehabilititatitiationan for juveniles.
(Some words are hard to spell.)

But surely, if guns were a deterrent then the US figures would be less than those pansy nations that ban guns, nations like Sweden, UK, Holland, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

But surely, if guns were a deterrent then the US figures would be less than those pansy nations that ban guns, nations like Sweden, UK, Holland, etc.

I wouldn't presume that.
Cultural & other differences have huge effects.

 

[metis]

But surely, if guns were a deterrent then the US figures would be less than those pansy nations that ban guns, nations like Sweden, UK, Holland, etc.

Absolutely correct. And also let me add to what you said in that the states that have the highest gun-related death rates are also the ones that tend to have the most lax gun laws. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Altfish]

I wouldn't presume that.
Cultural & other differences have huge effects.

But not gun laws??

 

[Revoltingest]

But not gun laws??

Gun laws have their effects too, of course.
But to measure these is difficult because of the other factors.
The property crime aspect seems particularly so.
Let's just say it would be unwise to try to steal my Providence Greene steam engine.

 

[Underhill]

But ya gotta remember that deadly force cannot legally be used if the only thing at risk is property.

So if someone is sneaking around my home without permission I am supposed to stop them and ask, "Are you hear to murder my family or just to steal from me?"

I'm not saying I would shoot first and ask questions later, but they would be on the wrong end of a gun if I were put in that position, no question.

I consider myself a reasonable person when it comes to guns. I keep mine locked up and would be in favor of some types of federal regulations. But the notion that a person should not protect his property seems a bit far fetched to me.

 

[metis]

But not gun laws??

It's just more lame excuses they use over and over again to convince themselves that they must be right. Serious non-partisan studies done here in the States (I prefer university studies since they don't really have any irons in that fire) confirm that what you say is true, regardless of what the deniers try to throw against the wall.

 

[metis]

So if someone is sneaking around my home without permission I am supposed to stop them and ask, "Are you hear to murder my family or just to steal from me?"

I'm not saying I would shoot first and ask questions later, but they would be on the wrong end of a gun if I were put in that position, no question.

I consider myself a reasonable person when it comes to guns. I keep mine locked up and would be in favor of some types of federal regulations. But the notion that a person should not protect his property seems a bit far fetched to me.

If a burglar is running out of your house with your 72" widescreen t.v., and you shoot him, you're gonna get charged with manslaughter at the least. If he has his back to you, unless he has a weapon, you also would be at risk for manslaughter charges.

The police will tell you over and over again, do not attempt to engage.

 

[Underhill]

So you think another man's life is less important than your baubles and trinkets?

Gun laws have their effects too, of course.
But to measure these is difficult because of the other factors.
The property crime aspect seems particularly so.
Let's just say it would be unwise to try to steal my Providence Greene steam engine.

Nice, we have a museum here in town that has a number of the old steam engines. They even start them up a couple times a year.

 

[4consideration]

Yes, and according to the National Highway Safety Council, in about one accident out of twenty, a person is better off not wearing a seat belt.

Well, we're not actually talking about seat belts. I get your point, though. It is a valid one.

Anything can happen, and even the wisest of safety precautions can, on occasion, be harmful. Guns are inherently dangerous, and I would not suggest that other people "should" have them in the same way I might suggest, or require, that one wear a seatbelt. I require my children to wear seat belts. I don't allow them to have guns.

But...we weren't talking about seat belts. We were talking about good guys with guns. Even though I'm not inclined to carry one, personally, I wouldn't want to stop a good guy from properly doing so. I rather see the good guys carrying them, too -- and not just the bad guys.

 

[Underhill]

If a burglar is running out of your house with your 72" widescreen t.v., and you shoot him, you're gonna get charged with manslaughter at the least. If he has his back to you, unless he has a weapon, you also would be at risk for manslaughter charges.

The police will tell you over and over again, do not attempt to engage.

Sure, so I should just pull the covers over my head and hope they don't decide to bother me.

Nobody here has said anything about shooting them. But telling them to get the hell out of my house, or better yet, hold them until the police show up, is not an unreasonable response. Doing so with a gun in my hand, preferably pointed at them, simply reduces the chances they will decide it's better to beat me to death than comply.

 

[4consideration]

It's fine if you have enough foreknowledge to prepare and to get your gun. But mostly you wont be granted such foreknowledge. Nobody sends you an email a week beforehand to inform you of their plans. They just turn up, shoot you, and 9/10 you wont have your gun there to do anything about it.

What? The criminals in your area don't have the common courtesy to call before coming? How rude! Outrageous!

Seriously, I see from your comment that I could at least increase the possibility of having a gun on hand if a bad guy shows up, if I actually had one. There would be that 1 time out of ten, I'd actually have it.

My point is that I don't think I'm in a statistically likely scenario for needing a gun -- considering that most gun violence at least as far as I know, is either from suicide or gun related crime, among drug dealers/gangs. I tend to stay away from high crime areas, but some people do need to travel through those areas frequently.

But, anything can happen, and it can happen anywhere. I think if one is talking about statistics, one would have to consider that in the US, with the number of guns (I've seen conflicting numbers between 270 million and 310 million) taking the lowest number of 270 million, if there are 30,000 gun related deaths in the US per year -- that comes to .0002 of guns.

Of course, tragic happenings like accidents do happen. I've read about 3% of gun deaths are accidental, and about 60% of annual gun deaths are suicides. Overall, it seems only a very small percentage -- not even 1 whole percent of guns, not even 1/10 of a percent are involved in deaths each year.

With the figures we see, and the amount of guns, I feel confident to say I think we have more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns in the U.S. I like it that way.

 

[metis]

Well, we're not actually talking about seat belts. I get your point, though. It is a valid one.

Anything can happen, and even the wisest of safety precautions can, on occasion, be harmful. Guns are inherently dangerous, and I would not suggest that other people "should" have them in the same way I might suggest, or require, that one wear a seatbelt. I require my children to wear seat belts. I don't allow them to have guns.

But...we weren't talking about seat belts. We were talking about good guys with guns. Even though I'm not inclined to carry one, personally, I wouldn't want to stop a good guy from properly doing so. I rather see the good guys carrying them, too -- and not just the bad guys.

I have never supported the idea of keeping law-abiding citizens from having a gun. But what I have long been concerned about is the ready availability of handguns in particular, which are the preferred guns for criminals. In most other industrialized countries, getting a permit to carry or even purchasing a handgun is very difficult and pretty much only allowed on a must-need basis-- but not here in the States.

Secondly, besides making such guns harder to obtain and carry, the penalty for mere possession of an illegal gun should be very stiff, because we should assume that such illegal possession probably has other illegal activities in mind. In the U.K., one could get up to 10 years for illegal possession alone.

When I used to bring in the police and FBI into my political science course, I would always ask them about this, and they always said the same thing: do not try to engage someone who breaks into your house, and call 911 instead. They said that preventative measures are far safer in all aspects than keeping a loaded gun in one's home, namely outside lights (motion detector and/or day/night), security screens and doors, a dog (doesn't have to be large), alarm systems, etc. By doing this, one makes their home look much less attractive to thieves.

 

[metis]

Sure, so I should just pull the covers over my head and hope they don't decide to bother me.

Nobody here has said anything about shooting them. But telling them to get the hell out of my house, or better yet, hold them until the police show up, is not an unreasonable response. Doing so with a gun in my hand, preferably pointed at them, simply reduces the chances they will decide it's better to beat me to death than comply.

See my previous post.

 

[Underhill]

When I used to bring in the police and FBI into my political science course, I would always ask them about this, and they always said the same thing: do not try to engage someone who breaks into your house, and call 911 instead. They said that preventative measures are far safer in all aspects than keeping a loaded gun in one's home, namely outside lights (motion detector and/or day/night), security screens and doors, a dog (doesn't have to be large), alarm systems, etc. By doing this, one makes their home look much less attractive to thieves.

That sounds lovely. Statistically it may even be true. But when sitting in the dark, and you hear that prowler downstairs, I don't know too many people who wouldn't grab the a gun, a golf club, a baseball bat... whatever, before they go check out the sound.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have never supported the idea of keeping law-abiding citizens from having a gun. But what I have long been concerned about is the ready availability of handguns in particular, which are the preferred guns for criminals. In most other industrialized countries, getting a permit to carry or even purchasing a handgun is very difficult and pretty much only allowed on a must-need basis-- but not here in the States.

Secondly, besides making such guns harder to obtain and carry, the penalty for mere possession of an illegal gun should be very stiff, because we should assume that such illegal possession probably has other illegal activities in mind. In the U.K., one could get up to 10 years for illegal possession alone.

When I used to bring in the police and FBI into my political science course, I would always ask them about this, and they always said the same thing: do not try to engage someone who breaks into your house, and call 911 instead. They said that preventative measures are far safer in all aspects than keeping a loaded gun in one's home, namely outside lights (motion detector and/or day/night), security screens and doors, a dog (doesn't have to be large), alarm systems, etc. By doing this, one makes their home look much less attractive to thieves.

What a cop might say in a class can differ from what one would say privately, particularly to someone like me. I've been advised more about engagement issues.

 

[4consideration]

I have never supported the idea of keeping law-abiding citizens from having a gun. But what I have long been concerned about is the ready availability of handguns in particular, which are the preferred guns for criminals. In most other industrialized countries, getting a permit to carry or even purchasing a handgun is very difficult and pretty much only allowed on a must-need basis-- but not here in the States.

Secondly, besides making such guns harder to obtain and carry, the penalty for mere possession of an illegal gun should be very stiff, because we should assume that such illegal possession probably has other illegal activities in mind. In the U.K., one could get up to 10 years for illegal possession alone.

When I used to bring in the police and FBI into my political science course, I would always ask them about this, and they always said the same thing: do not try to engage someone who breaks into your house, and call 911 instead. They said that preventative measures are far safer in all aspects than keeping a loaded gun in one's home, namely outside lights (motion detector and/or day/night), security screens and doors, a dog (doesn't have to be large), alarm systems, etc. By doing this, one makes their home look much less attractive to thieves.

Fortunately, I've not had much occasion to need to physically defend my family or my home.

Although I did have one experience with a neighbor with mental health issues, it seemed had seriously overdone his meds, and was on our property and frightened me, mostly because I had two young children at the time. This guy would not leave, so I called a friend I knew was always armed. He showed up and tried to talk to the guy. My friend ended up calling the police without actually pulling out his own gun.

The whole thing was resolved without violence. I don't remember if the police officer actually suggested having a gun -- but I do remember he said they think it's better to be judged by 12 peers than carried by 6. I hadn't heard that one before.