Gun Control debate - What the hell is wrong with people???

[skiny]

A. I'm sure that's common sense for gun owners. We have heard from a few gun owners in this thread, I believe all of them say they were trained since a young age.

Trained by a professional. Not a parent or an uncle. Keep in mind if you have a gun in a house everyone in that house potentially has access to it. Even the untrained.

B. That's a givin.

Maybe for you. Does your neighbour have that sense?

C. Not according to Mousey who was in charge of the guns, not her mother. (I'm just going by what she said, I don't know her age at the time) Again, as I said many times, she grew up where this was the "norm".

Leaving children in charge of guns is asking for trouble. I'm not saying Mousey was a child. I'm saying in general. If I bought a gun and didn't store it as safely as I could and one of my children found it and shot themselves with it, I don't think I could live with that. Small children are not sensible enough, careful enough or mature enough to be handling guns.

D. I HATE guns, if I was to get one, and I was standing there in front of a criminal I would shoot with no problem to protect my daughter as would any other parent, I believe, we do anything to protect our children.

That's the wild west attitude again. Civilian judges, juries and executioners. Maybe it turns out that this guy is just some kid looking to steal someone's stereo and the home owner thought he saw a gun. Or even worse the home owner takes a shot at this criminal even just to scare him off and the bullet ends up in a child sleeping in the next room. Bullets don't stop just because they miss. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular but I don't think some people have any idea how serious the game is when they start firing off guns. You're in a bad enough situation as it is. Adding a gun to the mix has just as much of a chance of making the situation worse as it does of making it better.

E. Why? Did I leave a map on the front door directing him to the gun?

No but you didn't leave him a map to your jewelry or silverware either.

F. I am ok with that.

Well, ask yourself that if he's the one firing rounds off in his living room and they end up in yours.

 

[The Dude]

What about non-lethal weapons like tasers? I wonder how many intruders have been shot and killed over a petty crime. Just because someone breaks into a house or trespasses doesn't mean he's there to rape and maim. He may just be looking for something to steal - booze, money, jewelry, etc. That's nothing to die for. A tazer would knock him out, and I don't think they can send projectiles through walls that kill sleeping kids.

 

[P.V.]

I was in the c-store business in intercity Nashville for 16 years, a high crime area. Just one of many stories over that 16 year period run, one night a guy came into the store and put a knife to my neck and said give me all the money.

I backed away quickly and asked him if he'd like for me to put the money into a sack for him. He said yes.

Instead of getting a sack under the counter I pulled a gun, made him drop his knife and held him until the police arrived. He went to jail and my actions protected myself, all the other customers inside the store during the incident.

Sure I could have had a baseball bat behind the counter and busted the guys head wide open, maybe, but when he saw the gun he conceded and compiled to my every demand. He went to prison for armed robbery.

Guns in fact serve a purpose, despite the naysayers, I can assure you if the naysayers were in fact in the right business or situation they might change their mind. It's easy to say, oh I'll just bust them in the head, fight them off or whatever but that's not always the case nor is it that easy. My life is important, I have a wife to take care of, grandkids and other family members. I'm not scared as many have said about gun ownership within the U.S., but I do have a right to protect myself, I'll do so anyway I can!

All these gun posts actually got me thinking I need to upgrade the firearm I regularly carry, so tonight I went and bought a new Glock which holds 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Before all this gun talk here lately I carried a Colt revolver, 6 shot with a 6 round speed loader.

 

[skiny]

I was in the c-store business in intercity Nashville for 16 years, a high crime area. Just one of many stories over that 16 year period run, one night a guy came into the store and put a knife to my neck and said give me all the money.

I backed away quickly and asked him if he'd like for me to put the money into a sack for him. He said yes.

Instead of getting a sack under the counter I pulled a gun, made him drop his knife and held him until the police arrived. He went to jail and my actions protected myself, all the other customers inside the store during the incident.

Sure I could have had a baseball bat behind the counter and busted the guys head wide open, maybe, but when he saw the gun he conceded and compiled to my every demand. He went to prison for armed robbery.

Guns in fact serve a purpose, despite the naysayers, I can assure you if the naysayers were in fact in the right business or situation they might change their mind. It's easy to say, oh I'll just bust them in the head, fight them off or whatever but that's not always the case nor is it that easy. My life is important, I have a wife to take care of, grandkids and other family members. I'm not scared as many have said about gun ownership within the U.S., but I do have a right to protect myself, I'll do so anyway I can!

All these gun posts actually got me thinking I need to upgrade the firearm I regularly carry, so tonight I went and bought a new Glock which holds 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. Before all this gun talk here lately I carried a Colt revolver, 6 shot with a 6 round speed loader.

So you think you'll need to shoot 15 people before reloading or 14 warning shots?

You can hand pick stories or personal experiences where having a gun was benificial just like I did earlier showing examples where it was not.

Americans have to stop looking at gun control as a personal issue and start seeing it as a national one. Start asking yourselves what's better for the country and not what's better for you.

 

[Pinababy69]

Outdated URL (Invalid)

What in the hell kind of site is that? I clicked the link to see what "proof" there was of this conspiracy theory...and what do I find? A site dedicated to anti-semitic comments, and conspiracy theories. I now remember that you are the same person who posted that the Holocaust was nothing more than a hoax perpetrated on all of us stupid people who didn't know any better. So the Newtown massacre was the product of a huge Jewish conspiracy? My God...and we wonder why the world is in such bad shape?

Just so you know, I've reported your post. You are entitled to any and all of your conspiracy theories...but to post links to a site, which is nothing more than pure hate? Total bullshit. I'm not Jewish, but I am still offended. I feel sorry for you, truly.

Sorry for the derail folks. Back on topic.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

I was watching BBC news at around 5am this morning and it was saying about Australias gun laws and their 'buy back scheme' after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.There has not been 1 mass shooting since.

Someone was saying earlier after gun laws were passed in the UK gun crime almost doubled,that maybe so however since certain gun laws were passed in 1988/89,and most handguns with a calibre of over .22 were banned in 1997 gun deaths for most years have been falling.

In 2008 the number of gun related deaths were 39,the lowest it has ever been since the 1988 laws were passed.

 

[Pinababy69]

Quoting the second amendment doesn't cut if for me. The American lifestyle was vastly different 250 years ago, and if the founding fathers were able to see what happened last week, they would have either scratched that one or put an expiration date on it. It should have expired decades ago when craziness started becoming the norm.

I am so glad that you mentioned this Bryan. I had wanted to myself...but being a Canadian, I didn't want to offend any of our U.S. members by referencing the Constitution. The Second Amendment was written for a time when people lived in the "Wild West", not for civlization as it is now. Also, unless I completely misunderstand it...was it not written to ensure that the public would never be under total government control...ie. as a safeguard against total tyranny? Not sure if I'm saying this right...but, so that the "people" could arm themselves, in the same way that the government/military did? Sort of pointless nowadays...as the government/military, have nuclear weapons, missiles, tanks, etc. Does that mean that private citizens should also be allowed to possess nuclear warheads...to remain on par with the government?

Am I way off base here? As I said, this was my understanding of how the Amendment was written.

 

[Westland Bowl]

What in the hell kind of site is that? I clicked the link to see what "proof" there was of this conspiracy theory...and what do I find? A site dedicated to anti-semitic comments, and conspiracy theories. I now remember that you are the same person who posted that the Holocaust was nothing more than a hoax perpetrated on all of us stupid people who didn't know any better. So the Newtown massacre was the product of a huge Jewish conspiracy? My God...and we wonder why the world is in such bad shape?

Just so you know, I've reported your post. You are entitled to any and all of your conspiracy theories...but to post links to a site, which is nothing more than pure hate? Total bullshit. I'm not Jewish, but I am still offended. I feel sorry for you, truly.

Sorry for the derail folks. Back on topic.

What the frickin' hell is wrong with you???? I never said the Holocaust didn't happen! I just questioned the 6 Million figure! I can't even do that??? Where in the hell did I ever called anyone stupid???

As far as the website mentioned, Henry Makow himself is Jewish so he is only reporting on his own people. If you knew the Talmud (which justifies the Palestinian Holocaust), you would know the source of most of the world's antisemitism.

The links he provided in the article contains links to YouTube videos showing TV news reporting on eyewitnesses of a 2nd shooter. Other links provide provide information ignored by mainstream media. One should not be spoon-fed the news the way "they" want to present it. And, yes, I do believe there are such a thing as "The Powers That Be" (Some Jewish, some not) who do control the wars and events such as this for manipulating public opinion in their favor, in this case, the banning of guns for a planned control of Americans. By the way, just because I provide a link to a website doesn't mean I approve of ALL things on that website- I just provide it for discussion and you make up your own mind. But don't tar and feather me for doing so.

 

[skiny]

I'm probably going to shoot myself for asking this but how does banning guns give anyone power over the people in America? Is someone planning a hostile house by house take over? Is there going to be a civil war or revolution and the American people are going to have to take up arms and head for the streets?

If you're really into conspiracy theories you should know guns aren't needed to control the general population, the government, the media and the church already does that without firing a single shot.

 

[mamasita70]

2nd amendment is BS

I love (HATE) when people arguing legitimate issues (gun control, abortion, etc), point to the US Constitution written over 200 years ago. It doesn't cut it for me either. Even worse, I have heard more than a few gun/2nd amendment supports say the main reason they need it is because Obama is planning to become dictator and will not relinquish power in 4 years and they need to protect themselves from the government. BULLOCKS for sure!!!!!!

I just wish the hunters that need guns hunted each other instead of innocent animals. Then at least that part of the gun problem would be reduced geometrically every hunting season.

I am so glad that you mentioned this Bryan. I had wanted to myself...but being a Canadian, I didn't want to offend any of our U.S. members by referencing the Constitution. The Second Amendment was written for a time when people lived in the "Wild West", not for civlization as it is now. Also, unless I completely misunderstand it...was it not written to ensure that the public would never be under total government control...ie. as a safeguard against total tyranny? Not sure if I'm saying this right...but, so that the "people" could arm themselves, in the same way that the government/military did? Sort of pointless nowadays...as the government/military, have nuclear weapons, missiles, tanks, etc. Does that mean that private citizens should also be allowed to possess nuclear warheads...to remain on par with the government?

Am I way off base here? As I said, this was my understanding of how the Amendment was written.

 

[anniemac]

I've left this thread alone because I am a gun owner and don't feel that a gun is the reason why the world is in the shape it's in now.

At one time, my Sig. Other and I had quite a collection of weapons, all securely locked in a gun safe with gun locks from the local sheriff's office or provided by the seller. Now we are down to three, a rifle, a handgun and my Dad's 1945 .22 rifle. Never, ever, ever will I give up that gun. It holds 13bullets and will shoot as fast as I can pump it.

I live in a very small county, in a rural area. I can stand in my front yard and point out a marijuana dealer, a meth dealer and 3-4 crack heads. All of them have been in prison at one time or another. The meth dealers son beat a man so bad that he required extensive surgery and after he beat him, he left him in a ditch to die. I am not talking about living a block or so from me, they live across the street.

They don't mess with me, most time will drive out the other way just to keep from driving in front of my house. Why, because they think I'm nuts and quite capable of doing bodily damage if threatened. And I fully intend to keep it that way.

On the times that I have had to call the local sheriff, it takes them at least an hour to respond because there are limited deputies and after a highway patrolman was killed by a meth head he pulled over about 3 miles from my house, they don't patrol the road anymore. I'm not knocking the local law enforcement, they do the best the can with what they have.

But I'm not going to whack this fool across the road with a ball bat while he is in a meth rage while I am waiting on the deputy to get here. Would I shoot to kill someone, only if I felt that my family or I was in eminent danger but I would sure back him back across the road.

 

[skiny]

I've left this thread alone because I am a gun owner and don't feel that a gun is the reason why the world is in the shape it's in now.

At one time, my Sig. Other and I had quite a collection of weapons, all securely locked in a gun safe with gun locks from the local sheriff's office or provided by the seller. Now we are down to three, a rifle, a handgun and my Dad's 1945 .22 rifle. Never, ever, ever will I give up that gun. It holds 13bullets and will shoot as fast as I can pump it.

I live in a very small county, in a rural area. I can stand in my front yard and point out a marijuana dealer, a meth dealer and 3-4 crack heads. All of them have been in prison at one time or another. The meth dealers son beat a man so bad that he required extensive surgery and after he beat him, he left him in a ditch to die. I am not talking about living a block or so from me, they live across the street.

They don't mess with me, most time will drive out the other way just to keep from driving in front of my house. Why, because they think I'm nuts and quite capable of doing bodily damage if threatened. And I fully intend to keep it that way.

On the times that I have had to call the local sheriff, it takes them at least an hour to respond because there are limited deputies and after a highway patrolman was killed by a meth head he pulled over about 3 miles from my house, they don't patrol the road anymore. I'm not knocking the local law enforcement, they do the best the can with what they have.

But I'm not going to whack this fool across the road with a ball bat while he is in a meth rage while I am waiting on the deputy to get here. Would I shoot to kill someone, only if I felt that my family or I was in eminent danger but I would sure back him back across the road.

If there are this many stories from all different parts of the US where the crime rates are so bad and the areas they live in are so dangerous that the average American isn't safe unless he or she's armed then there is a lot bigger problem than gun control. This debate is starting to make the entire USA look like a crime ridden slum.

I lived in Toronto for roughly half my life. It's the biggest city in Canada by population. I never once felt I needed to be armed. I'm starting to feel bad for you people. How does an entire country get so dangerous?

 

[anniemac]

Skiny,

I live in a private community on a big lake in East Texas. It was a nice quiet place to live until about 2 yrs. ago. I don't know why the drug dealers/crackheads want to live out here, except that the law enforcement is limited and they know it. They make no bones about what they do or that they intend to continue doing it. I have been here nearly 13 years and would move in a heart beat if my house and land weren't paid for and I am kinda attached to my home.

We had to call the police Thursday morning around 4:30a.m. because the traffic was so bad and the deputy got here at 8:00a.m. That is just the way it is in rural areas around here.

FYI, just had a run in with my neighbor around the corner. He was walking down to the meth dealer across from me and my dog barked at him. He took offense and I had to put him on down the road. He wanted to come up on my porch with me but thought better of it when I didn't back down.

And that is the reason why I'm not giving up my gun.

 

[just play]

If there are this many stories from all different parts of the US where the crime rates are so bad and the areas they live in are so dangerous that the average American isn't safe unless he or she's armed then there is a lot bigger problem than gun control. This debate is starting to make the entire USA look like a crime ridden slum.

I lived in Toronto for roughly half my life. It's the biggest city in Canada by population. I never once felt I needed to be armed. I'm starting to feel bad for you people. How does an entire country get so dangerous?

Well I didn't want to post in this thread again, but I will try and answer this. Just from my perspective.

I think "most" people who own guns in America were raised with them. Some people eventually buy them because their once safe neighborhood turned unsafe. Also, most of the people are trying to point out in this thread the reason for them or others to own guns is because of high crime rate near them, or even not near them, etc.

I came to the house I am living in when I was 7 years old. Grew up here until I had my daughter at 19, moved out. Then about 10 years later my father gave the house to my brother and me, my husband and I had to buy out my brother. I will live here until the day I die. You know how many crimes we have had in my area in 30 years? (This includes any crime you can think of, with or without gun) maybe 5, and that may be high. I happen to live in a nice area, but like I said 20 minutes away from me is a city that is in the top 20 cities with the worst crime rate in USA.

Crime ridden slum is a little extensive I would think. You said you never felt the need to be armed, I thinks that's because you are against guns. I never felt the need to eat brussel sprouts because I am against them.

I find it hard to believe there are no places in Canada or UK (most posters are from these places) that have high crime rates, it strikes me as odd. I always thought there were high crime places everywhere in the world, but the way it seems USA is the only place that have crimes. (just going by posters in this thread)

Going off topic a bit...the worse the economy the more the crime rate raises...we have been in the worst economy for some years now.

 

[Reefer]

Gunchester

Im from manchester uk, the city was bradished with the name gunchester during the 90s due to all the shootings between the moss side salford and cheetam hill gangs.

Last new years day a lad walked upto a student and shot him in the head, he then booked into a hotel across the road from the murder scene to observer the chaos he had caused.
He was arested and charged and when he was asked his name in court he replied with psycho stapleton

About two months ago the police were called to a burgalry in manchester, when the two policewomen arived they were shot and then had a grenade thrown on them.
The guy who did this had allso shot and killed a father and son after an ongoing fued spiralled into murder. after killing the policewomen he handed himself in

Rhoal moat come out of prison to find his wife having an afair with a policeman, he armed himself and went cop huntin, he was eventualy tracked down and cornered by police and elegedly commited suicide with his shotgun

Mark duggen was shot by police marksmen in londen after inteligence suggested he was armed, this was the cause of the riots that spread across the nation

Well banning poeple from owning guns doesnt stop them from obtaining them obviousely

 

[dionysus]

Well I didn't want to post in this thread again, but I will try and answer this. Just from my perspective.

I think "most" people who own guns in America were raised with them. Some people eventually buy them because their once safe neighborhood turned unsafe. Also, most of the people are trying to point out in this thread the reason for them or others to own guns is because of high crime rate near them, or even not near them, etc.

I came to the house I am living in when I was 7 years old. Grew up here until I had my daughter at 19, moved out. Then about 10 years later my father gave the house to my brother and me, my husband and I had to buy out my brother. I will live here until the day I die. You know how many crimes we have had in my area in 30 years? (This includes any crime you can think of, with or without gun) maybe 5, and that may be high. I happen to live in a nice area, but like I said 20 minutes away from me is a city that is in the top 20 cities with the worst crime rate in USA.

Crime ridden slum is a little extensive I would think. You said you never felt the need to be armed, I thinks that's because you are against guns. I never felt the need to eat brussel sprouts because I am against them.

I find it hard to believe there are no places in Canada or UK (most posters are from these places) that have high crime rates, it strikes me as odd. I always thought there were high crime places everywhere in the world, but the way it seems USA is the only place that have crimes. (just going by posters in this thread)

Going off topic a bit...the worse the economy the more the crime rate raises...we have been in the worst economy for some years now.

We have crime in Canada of course. It isn't utopia. But no, it isn't the same degree as it is in the states. Remember, our whole population in this great big country is pretty much the size of just one of your states (Ca.) so while a little like comparing apples to oranges, maybe it's more like comparing one citrus to another; alot the same, but definite differences in size and tastes. We may be your closest neighbour but there's still significant differences in culture, mentality, govt, etc. So it's hard to see your side in some matters, like, say, for guns, because frankly we aren't 'you guys'. It doesnt diminish our opinion; we're just coming at it from our perspective. I've walked through our 'worst' neighbourhoods and never felt the need to own a gun, because the chance of me being mugged are small. Oddly, I HAVE been mugged lol. But statistically, it was the rare chance. (just some idiot with too much bravado). But the point is, I don't feel now nor then, that a gun was needed (I wasn't mugged at gunpoint ...the chances of THAT were infinitesimal) and me potentially losing just my wallet didnt rise to the escalation that I felt compelled to shoot someone. Saying I need a gun because of that rare chance, is like me buying a Hubble-esque telescope because my house MAY be hit by a meteor. It COULD happen that I became placed at gunpoint, raped (nah, who'd want me lol), forced to protect a loved one, but the chances just arent high in the realm of probability. Sure, 'some' Canadian may have. The other 999 of that 1000 focus group have not.
Anyway, yes, we DO have crime. Does it compare to the rate of yours? No. So we're looking at your situation from our situation. Does it feel judgmental? Probably. We aren't in your shoes, we didn't grow up where you did. But we can only base our opinions on our life and experiences. HERE, a gun is unnecessary..on the whole! It really is. There's some nuts, some whackos, some crackheads, but on the entirety, over the spread of the country, it is not the norm and I suspect many other places in the world too (just as conversely, there are bad crime-ridden places in the world)

 

[rockycatt]

What about non-lethal weapons like tasers? I wonder how many intruders have been shot and killed over a petty crime. Just because someone breaks into a house or trespasses doesn't mean he's there to rape and maim. He may just be looking for something to steal - booze, money, jewelry, etc. That's nothing to die for. A tazer would knock him out, and I don't think they can send projectiles through walls that kill sleeping kids.

sir in my opinion the high risk a person takes by breaking into another person 's home ,well it should be expected by that person that infact he may loose hiss life [the hard facts of life ]

respectfully R C

 

[dionysus]

sir in my opinion the high risk a person takes by breaking into another person 's home ,well it should be expected by that person that infact he may loose hiss life [the hard facts of life ]

respectfully R C

sorry, disagree here; I dont think a bored 15 year old looking to B and E and swipe a stereo or money should be worrying about dying for it; he should be worried about prison. If you believe the risk associated with a burglary should be death, why not petition the govt to off them instead of jail time. A little overkill IMO. If anything, to me, this argument works AGAINST owning guns, if those who have them, think killing intruders instead of scaring them off is the way to go.

 

[just play]

Remember, our whole population in this great big country is pretty much the size of just one of your states (Ca.)

Ok this makes much more sense to me now!

Canada has almost 40 million.

UK has about 50-55 million? (I forget)

USA has 330 million.


This is a HUGE HUGE difference.


Canada is one of the lowest in the world of population density, whereas UK is one of the highest.

As you can tell I have been racking my brain to figure out why it seems like we have psychos on every corner, but now it is more clear to me.

 

[just play]

If there are this many stories from all different parts of the US where the crime rates are so bad and the areas they live in are so dangerous that the average American isn't safe unless he or she's armed then there is a lot bigger problem than gun control. This debate is starting to make the entire USA look like a crime ridden slum.

I lived in Toronto for roughly half my life. It's the biggest city in Canada by population. I never once felt I needed to be armed. I'm starting to feel bad for you people. How does an entire country get so dangerous?

Dionysus answered your question perfectly. Our entire country has 330 million compaired to yours with just about 40 million.

So now that I look at the numbers, it's no wonder it seems we have more crimes, we have 290 million more people.

 

[rockycatt]

sorry, disagree here; I dont think a bored 15 year old looking to B and E and swipe a stereo or money should be worrying about dying for it; he should be worried about prison. If you believe the risk associated with a burglary should be death, why not petition the govt to off them instead of jail time. A little overkill IMO. If anything, to me, this argument works AGAINST owning guns, if those who have them, think killing intruders instead of scaring them off is the way to go.

maybe you should review some land mark atrocities that home invasions by one or more [breaking and entering ] have resulted in = im taking the decision weather to shoot to kill or shoot to stop when they come breaking in
and rest asure im not interviewing them

 

[dionysus]

oh, good, well, if youre a great marksman that when aiming you can guarantee a 'wounding shot' or a killing shot, bravo; though I don't think many homeowners could

 

[Cleveland]

Sorry but I disagree. I should wait to see what their intentions are? O really? So how do I know when the intentions or good or bad? Countless home invasions end in murder. Use less than lethal when someone breaks into your home? Lets see last week I ended up with 7 stitches in my right forearm while myself, 3 other police officers (2 of which used their tasers), and 2 detention officers tried to end a subjects resistance.

A home invasion is a high risk / high danger / inherently violent crime and to think you will be able to survive by doing your ninja roll across the floor and tasing the subject(s) breaking in is beyond crazy. Most subjects will attempt to break in when someone isn't home as they typical "watch" the house. If they are breaking in when you are there a RED flag should pop up in your minds eye. True they might not have the will to harm you but you are foolish to think maybe this will end with them just taking my belongings and not beating me up, not killing me, not raping me....Instead of "I've trained, I've learned, I'm prepared to protect my home and family." It's different from carrying a gun in public. We can all argue back and forth on that one. A home is a different story.

Will some less than lethal uses of force work.....of course.....but to tell that man who had his home broke into last month he should have waited to see if they were going to kill him or not....all I can say is wow. Luckily he was prepared to return fire and did. This isn't stuff I'm making up. These aren't things that I'm saying I "feel" . This is what I see week in week out. Myself and other officers have been on the receiving end of "you should have waited to see what the subject(s)" was going to do. For example: Officer goes to arrest subject. Subject pulls away from officer's grasp. Subject might just run. Subject might just be upset and doesn't understand what is happening. Public tells the officer to wait and see which is which......

......In my world however. Subject pulls away and you put them down. You prevent the possible fight from happening. You use force one level greater than what resistance or force they have used. Someone breaks into your home while you are there, you have no way of knowing their intentions. Being in any type of fight is not fun AT ALL. Hoping that you will be able to "scare" them away will typically end with one result. These are the stats plain and simple. The number of home invasions that end in some form of violence is high.

Back to waiting to see what will happen. A few of my friends were in a shooting approx 2 months ago. Subject fired multiple shots in the "direction of them." Maybe the subject wanted things to end in suicide by cop or maybe he really wanted to harm them. Either way they didn't have time to hope it was the lesser of the two. They had to act violently towards the violent act.

The world isn't all bad. When things like this happen everyone forgets all of the good. Reason and logic leaves the equation. Bombers have claimed more lives than these shootings. People want to cause harm, they can. You don't fix the problem by weakening people's resolve.

 

[rockycatt]

oh, good, well, if youre a great marksman that when aiming you can guarantee a 'wounding shot' or a killing shot, bravo; though I don't many homeowners could

12 gauge below the waist = stop 12 gauge in the torso = dead that's as simple as ill keep it no interview

PS and lets remember home invasions is a high risk business

 

[dionysus]

again, that's you
not everyone picked up a 12 gauge

 

[dionysus]

and let's remember, owning a gun is a high risk business

 

[LaHutti]

I have to admit that a post like this, from a police officer, is what is most surprising to me, in this whole thread, and it tells me HOW big a difference there is between, not only the general population, but also police, in Europe and in America.

Cleve ...

Scenario 1.) 2 guys come to your house, armed with guns, to get money and your stereo. They see you have a gun, and therefore assume that you're willing to use it. Your family of wife and 2 kids are in the house with you. What is the intruders reaction, and the m,ost likely outcome ?

Scenario 2.) 2 guys come to your house with guns, to get money and your stereo. They see you unarmed, and willing to let them have what they're there for. Again your family is in the house with you. What is their reaction, and the most likely outcome ?

I can not believe, that a police officer would say...shoot...or even...let them know you have a gun. You would NEVER hear a police officer give that advice where I come from. THAT I know.

There are some HUGE differences there, where ever these differences come from, and I would love to know, if that's what police officers are taught in USA...that civilians, in any way shape or form, should get in a fight with intruders ? OR should a civillian do everything they can to diffuse the situation, and get the intruders out of their home as fast and painless as possible, at any material cost, and let the police do their job ?

I'm seriously curious about this.

Sorry but I disagree. I should wait to see what their intentions are? O really? So how do I know when the intentions or good or bad? Countless home invasions end in murder. Use less than lethal when someone breaks into your home? Lets see last week I ended up with 7 stitches in my right forearm while myself, 3 other police officers (2 of which used their tasers), and 2 detention officers tried to end a subjects resistance.

A home invasion is a high risk / high danger / inherently violent crime and to think you will be able to survive by doing your ninja roll across the floor and tasing the subject(s) breaking in is beyond crazy. Most subjects will attempt to break in when someone isn't home as they typical "watch" the house. If they are breaking in when you are there a RED flag should pop up in your minds eye. True they might not have the will to harm you but you are foolish to think maybe this will end with them just taking my belongings and not beating me up, not killing me, not raping me....Instead of "I've trained, I've learned, I'm prepared to protect my home and family." It's different from carrying a gun in public. We can all argue back and forth on that one. A home is a different story.

Will some less than lethal uses of force work.....of course.....but to tell that man who had his home broke into last month he should have waited to see if they were going to kill him or not....all I can say is wow. Luckily he was prepared to return fire and did. This isn't stuff I'm making up. These aren't things that I'm saying I "feel" . This is what I see week in week out. Myself and other officers have been on the receiving end of "you should have waited to see what the subject(s)" was going to do. For example: Officer goes to arrest subject. Subject pulls away from officer's grasp. Subject might just run. Subject might just be upset and doesn't understand what is happening. Public tells the officer to wait and see which is which......

......In my world however. Subject pulls away and you put them down. You prevent the possible fight from happening. You use force one level greater than what resistance or force they have used. Someone breaks into your home while you are there, you have no way of knowing their intentions. Being in any type of fight is not fun AT ALL. Hoping that you will be able to "scare" them away will typically end with one result. These are the stats plain and simple. The number of home invasions that end in some form of violence is high.

Back to waiting to see what will happen. A few of my friends were in a shooting approx 2 months ago. Subject fired multiple shots in the "direction of them." Maybe the subject wanted things to end in suicide by cop or maybe he really wanted to harm them. Either way they didn't have time to hope it was the lesser of the two. They had to act violently towards the violent act.

The world isn't all bad. When things like this happen everyone forgets all of the good. Reason and logic leaves the equation. Bombers have claimed more lives than these shootings. People want to cause harm, they can. You don't fix the problem by weakening people's resolve.

 

[rockycatt]

I have to admit that a post like this, from a police officer, is what is most surprising to me, in this whole thread, and it tells me HOW big a difference there is between, not only the general population, but also police, in Europe and in America.

Cleve ...

Scenario 1.) 2 guys come to your house, armed with guns, to get money and your stereo. They see you have a gun, and therefore assume that you're willing to use it. Your family of wife and 2 kids are in the house with you. What is the intruders reaction, and the m,ost likely outcome ?

Scenario 2.) 2 guys come to your house with guns, to get money and your stereo. They see you unarmed, and willing to let them have what they're there for. Again your family is in the house with you. What is their reaction, and the most likely outcome ?

I can not believe, that a police officer would say...shoot...or even...let them know you have a gun. You would NEVER hear a police officer give that advice where I come from. THAT I know.

There are some HUGE differences there, where ever these differences come from, and I would love to know, if that's what police officers are taught in USA...that civilians, in any way shape or form, should get in a fight with intruders ? OR should a civillian do everything they can to diffuse the situation, and get the intruders out of their home as fast and painless as possible, at any material cost, and let the police do their job ?

I'm seriously curious about this.

well maybe we should just take all the guns from the soldiers on one side after all there to enforce with extreme prejudice the will of some fat bourbon drinking politicians that don't have the backbone to do the dirty work

point is a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his family against a home invasion period

 

[Cleveland]

LaHutti:

The point of my post isn't for someone to engage in combat. The point of my post is to be prepared. Taking away every honest citizens guns (from their home) and then telling them to wait for police to arrive is akin to putting them at the mercy of any bad element. Its a fact that violent crimes happen every day to good people. What would be the harm of a citizen training for the worst and hoping for the best and that same citizen then having a firearm in a secured area of the house? Those examples you gave can go either way. As an officer who takes pride in my profession, I realize this and as such train accordingly.

There are places with gun bans that also have the highest violent crime rates. How will taking away my ability to have a gun inside my home lower the crime rate? I will always tell a citizen to be prepared to protect their homes. Any police officer that says wait on us is not only a fool but shouldn't be an Officer. Burst blood vessels in both eyes, swelling on the left cheek, two black eyes, bruising around the neck from being chocked, is what I've seen when I looked into her face when she tried waiting on us to arrive. And then I've been faced with that question from family members: "Why did it take you so long to get there?" In that moment its very hard to explain the nature of police response times. If you are in your home you should be prepared to protect it. We are talking HOMES here not some idiot vigilant running around the city with a gun.

As for as "America." Using the same logic that "if we could just prevent one mass shooting its worth it." Well you know what many other country's that are such great places to live with better laws have fallen victim to mass shootings. O how quick we forget. Maybe if someone was prepared to return fire the incident in those other countries wouldn't have ended with so many dead. After all that country has the right rules / laws in place....Well....Guess what still happened? Enforce the laws we have in place, make them stricter, force those who want to keep a gun in their home to attend yearly training.....I don't care. But don't weaken my ability to protect my family because of random acts of evil. An evil act touches everyone's heart strings and causes their sight to become blurred.

 

[LaHutti]

Even at the cost of 1 or more of their family members life ?
I'll try to be as polite as I possibly can saying this, but... that's just stupid. Sorry.
I seriously hope the laws will be changed, rather sooner than later, for the sake of the families, in risk of getting killed, because of some trigger happy "hero".

Soldiers are a completely different matter. They're put there to do their job with guns, and properly trained to do so, as are police officers, when needed. John Doe is NOT (Eventhough some of them apparently think they are), and is in very high risk of doing more harm than good.

well maybe we should just take all the guns from the soldiers on one side after all there to enforce with extreme prejudice the will of some fat bourbon drinking politicians that don't have the backbone to do the dirty work

point is a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his family against a home invasion period

 

[P.V.]

So you think you'll need to shoot 15 people before reloading or 14 warning shots?

Start asking yourselves what's better for the country and not what's better for you.

I hope I don't need to shoot anyone, btw it's 16 rounds you added wrong.

My current job/business for the past 15 years isn't a police officer but I have many of the same duties as an armored car service such as Brinks, or Wells Fargo. I must carry each day, just like Cleveland cause I want to go home at night and be with my family too.

So you don't really know what's better for me as you've never spent a day in the city with me, going in and out of places all day and areas that many people wouldn't even get out of their car at.

 

[LaHutti]

Now isn't that interesting...
I know a guy who used to drive a money transport somewhere in Europe.
I noticed that they're not armed, and thought.....after watching American movies, that it was the norm, to be armed in a job like that.
When I asked him why they're not armed, he looked at me like I was nuts, and said "Do you think I go to work to get killed " ???
There is NO way they WANT to be armed, as it invites people to shoot at them, to get what they want. The cars are "bulletproof", and very hard to get into, and if they're robbed while outside the car, they give them what they want, and again....let the police do their job. Most of the money will be coloured, and worthless, after a short time anyway.
Since it's not easy to get to the money in the first place, and the money will be ruined after a while, very few people even try. I think in the 48 years I've been around 3 or 4 money transports were successfully robbed, where I come from, and 0 people have been killed doing their job, transporting money. Had they been armed, I am, and the people working in that business, are sure those numbers would be different.
There are obviously ... as I said before, some very big differences, in the mentality between American people and a lot of the rest of the world

I hope I don't need to shoot anyone, btw it's 16 rounds you added wrong.

My current job/business for the past 15 years isn't a police officer but I have many of the same duties as an armored car service such as Brinks, or Wells Fargo. I must carry each day, just like Cleveland cause I want to go home at night and be with my family too.

So you don't really know what's better for me as you've never spent a day in the city with me, going in and out of places all day and areas that many people wouldn't even get out of their car at.

 

[Cleveland]

Even at the cost of 1 or more of their family members life ?

What family members life? I'm not sure of many if any incidents where someone's home was broke into, the homeowner then tried to defend it with a firearm, thus causing the death of a family member. I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened but I'm sure its rarer than a U.S. player playing at 32red these days. However I can recall many incidents where a firearm has saved the lives of the family inside the home.

edit: I'm getting confused as to what the topic is at this point. I'm throwing in the towel. Mainly because I know these issues won't be solved like this. I will end in saying this though. The core of the problem isn't a homeowner that has a firearm in their bedroom.

 

[LaHutti]

Well Cleve ... I could very easily see a family member losing their life in one of the 2 scenarios I set up in my earlier post, but I'll say this...If I had a gun in my home, and anyone threatened my family, I would maybe reach for it, and make things a lot worse than they already are...That's why I'm happy I don't need, nor would ever have a gun in my home, and I strongly believe, that guns in private homes do more harm than good, in more ways than one (all the ways that others have pointed out in this thread).

Anyways...We hired people to make the decisions, so let's let them do that, eventhough I do find discussions like this interesting.

What family members life? I'm not sure of many if any incidents where someone's home was broke into, the homeowner then tried to defend it with a firearm, thus causing the death of a family member. I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened but I'm sure its rarer than a U.S. player playing at 32red these days. However I can recall many incidents where a firearm has saved the lives of the family inside the home.

edit: I'm getting confused as to what the topic is at this point. I'm throwing in the towel. Mainly because I know these issues won't be solved like this. I will end in saying this though. The core of the problem isn't a homeowner that has a firearm in their bedroom.

 

[P.V.]

Now isn't that interesting...
I know a guy who used to drive a money transport somewhere in Europe.
I noticed that they're not armed, and thought.....after watching American movies, that it was the norm, to be armed in a job like that.
When I asked him why they're not armed, he looked at me like I was nuts, and said "Do you think I go to work to get killed " ???
There is NO way they WANT to be armed, as it invites people to shoot at them, to get what they want. The cars are "bulletproof", and very hard to get into, and if they're robbed while outside the car, they give them what they want, and again....let the police do their job. Most of the money will be coloured, and worthless, after a short time anyway.
Since it's not easy to get to the money in the first place, and the money will be ruined after a while, very few people even try. I think in the 48 years I've been around 3 or 4 money transports were successfully robbed, where I come from, and 0 people have been killed doing their job, transporting money. Had they been armed, I am, and the people working in that business, are sure those numbers would be different.
There are obviously ... as I said before, some very big differences, in the mentality between American people and a lot of the rest of the world

I find it hard to believe that you have armored car services going around your cities collecting money from businesses, banks and delivering money while being unarmed. Sounds like the North Pole or Disney World but not the real world.

 

[Nifty29]

well maybe we should just take all the guns from the soldiers on one side after all there to enforce with extreme prejudice the will of some fat bourbon drinking politicians that don't have the backbone to do the dirty work

point is a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his family against a home invasion period

.....and women don't?

A remark from the stone age there rocky.

The soldier comment....really??

 

[The Dude]

... You use force one level greater than what resistance or force they have used...

Ahh, that's the Chicago way

Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

...edit: I'm getting confused as to what the topic is at this point. I'm throwing in the towel. Mainly because I know these issues won't be solved like this. I will end in saying this though. The core of the problem isn't a homeowner that has a firearm in their bedroom.

No reason for confusion, what we are seeing here is the amazing differences in cultures, but these differences intersect in many ways. It has to do with attitudes. Look at the alcohol culture in Germany. The drinking age is sixteen. Beer is served everywhere to include school activities as long as one is of age. Yet even so, you just don't see people getting wasted like you do in the UK or the US (sorry Brits, but you drink to get drunk ). You do end up with drunk teenagers sometimes, but it's never been so bad as to prohibit their drinking. It's part of the culture.

Like I mentioned in my first post on the subject - Americans seem to react violently when dealing with either conflict/threats (imaginary or otherwise). This could be something that is just inherent in the society for a myriad of reasons - and has been ingrained for generations. There are bad parts of the States where people feel safer with guns, and I know for a fact there are several places in Alaska I would never go ashore without a high powered semi-automatic weapon. You don't have that situation in Europe so it's hard for some Europeans to relate.

Interesting comments here as well:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have a combined population of almost 391 million, as compared to the United States’ less than 312 million. The total number of gun homicides in those countries in the latest available year — 2010 for Germany, 2009 for the others — was 906. In the United States in 2010, that number was 9,960, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

The US gun crime is 10 times higher. And it's the only country that has lax gun laws. Sadly there is not much anyone can do about it. No one has either the answers or the guts to make a change.

 

[chayton]

Well I grew up in the boonies in BC, everyone in my family hunts and owns rifles, even the women - both of my grandmas, my mom, my aunts. My dad collected guns. I'm the only non-hunter - I'm not a vegetarian but if I had to kill my own food I'd starve to death. But I've been to the shooting range to shoot at targets or balloons. I've even shot a muzzleloader, and my shoulder is almost back to normal!

When I lived in Phoenix I was in a kinda bad neighborhood and my boyfriend at the time bought me a handgun. It was the first time I ever used one so went to an indoor shooting range for lessons and to shoot targets. Although it didn't really make me nervous to have it in the house, and I got to be a fairly good shot, the thought of ever having to actually use it on a person made me sick.

Anyhow...sorry for my digressing, but my point was this - shooting rifles at the range in Canada the targets were usually just a circle, like archery targets. When shooting a handgun at the range in AZ, the targets were shaped like humans. I found that interesting.

 

[ksech]

Long thread...lots of interesting opinions here too. First, I do own guns. My children were taught at young ages they weren't toys, they were taught the care and how to handle them. I also own dogs and have never locked my door (although I had one dog who would lock it for me, but that's another story).

I've never had an incident where I've had to produce one of the guns to protect myself inside the home. I once had to produce the shotgun to convince a group of hunters on ATVs they needed to leave my property. Other than that I've never had to use the guns except for their intended use of deer hunting or shooting skeet.

I can say I was once sued for medical damages my dogs incurred when a young man broke into my home and my dogs attacked him. The dogs corner him in the kitchen, he was alright as long as he stood still. He decided he didn't want to stand still any longer so he pepper sprayed the one and tried to lunge for the door. The other one didn't take kindly to his mate being sprayed. I came home from work to find this person lying face first on my kitchen floor, his arm and leg had long gouges in them. I called the police and ambulance, filled out all the necessary forms, yadda yadda yadda, only to find out...Even though this person broke into my home (and even though I had beware of dog signs posted) I was financially responsible for medical treatment for the person. It ended up costing me $750 in medical. Needless to say, I took down ALL Beware of dog signs.

Now, I had asked the cop, if this person had done bodily damage to myself and the dogs were protecting me, what would have happened then? It wouldn't have mattered, I would have still had to pay the persons' medical. Certain breeds of dogs are considered "lethal" weapons and fall under a high risk category. So, since I owned a doberman pincer and a german shepherd the person could have pushed the issue and pushed the have the dogs put down, citing them as "vicious".

So, beware dog owners, you may own "lethal" weapons and not even be aware of it. Best way to find out, check with your homeowners insurance. They carry a list of dogs they allow in homes they insure. You'll be surprised the dogs in the top 10 list of dogs your homeowners insurance WON'T cover...
To name a few of the given...
Doberman Pincer, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, Pitbull, and Collie

I'm on the line with all this ban guns stuff. It doesn't matter if there is a gun ban, if these idiots want guns they'll find a way to get them or they'll find a different way to kill. To me, we as a society need to figure out WHY these people feel the need to hurt defenseless human beings.

Whilst I didn't know her personally, Mary Sherlach (one of the teachers who died) graduated 4 years ahead of me from the same school. I wish I had had the priviledge to have known her. It takes a special type of person to do what she and the others did to try and protect those children. I'm angry and disillusioned that so many excuses will be used or tried to be justified for this travesty. I'm saddened by the fact that my grandchildren are afraid to go to school and MORE saddened by the fact that they're afraid there is that slim chance they won't come home...

 

[skiny]

Ok this makes much more sense to me now!

Canada has almost 40 million.

UK has about 50-55 million? (I forget)

USA has 330 million.


This is a HUGE HUGE difference.


Canada is one of the lowest in the world of population density, whereas UK is one of the highest.

As you can tell I have been racking my brain to figure out why it seems like we have psychos on every corner, but now it is more clear to me.

Canada's population density is deceiving. It's a huge land mass mostly covered in trees and snow with most of the population living in a very narrow strip along the southern border.

maybe you should review some land mark atrocities that home invasions by one or more [breaking and entering ] have resulted in = im taking the decision weather to shoot to kill or shoot to stop when they come breaking in
and rest asure im not interviewing them

Even after a conviction US judges don't sentence burglars to death. Is that why US citizens want to judge and sentence the burglars to death and then act as executioners before they make it to court?

Sorry but I disagree. I should wait to see what their intentions are? O really? So how do I know when the intentions or good or bad? Countless home invasions end in murder. Use less than lethal when someone breaks into your home? Lets see last week I ended up with 7 stitches in my right forearm while myself, 3 other police officers (2 of which used their tasers), and 2 detention officers tried to end a subjects resistance.

A home invasion is a high risk / high danger / inherently violent crime and to think you will be able to survive by doing your ninja roll across the floor and tasing the subject(s) breaking in is beyond crazy. Most subjects will attempt to break in when someone isn't home as they typical "watch" the house. If they are breaking in when you are there a RED flag should pop up in your minds eye. True they might not have the will to harm you but you are foolish to think maybe this will end with them just taking my belongings and not beating me up, not killing me, not raping me....Instead of "I've trained, I've learned, I'm prepared to protect my home and family." It's different from carrying a gun in public. We can all argue back and forth on that one. A home is a different story.

Will some less than lethal uses of force work.....of course.....but to tell that man who had his home broke into last month he should have waited to see if they were going to kill him or not....all I can say is wow. Luckily he was prepared to return fire and did. This isn't stuff I'm making up. These aren't things that I'm saying I "feel" . This is what I see week in week out. Myself and other officers have been on the receiving end of "you should have waited to see what the subject(s)" was going to do. For example: Officer goes to arrest subject. Subject pulls away from officer's grasp. Subject might just run. Subject might just be upset and doesn't understand what is happening. Public tells the officer to wait and see which is which......

......In my world however. Subject pulls away and you put them down. You prevent the possible fight from happening. You use force one level greater than what resistance or force they have used. Someone breaks into your home while you are there, you have no way of knowing their intentions. Being in any type of fight is not fun AT ALL. Hoping that you will be able to "scare" them away will typically end with one result. These are the stats plain and simple. The number of home invasions that end in some form of violence is high.

Back to waiting to see what will happen. A few of my friends were in a shooting approx 2 months ago. Subject fired multiple shots in the "direction of them." Maybe the subject wanted things to end in suicide by cop or maybe he really wanted to harm them. Either way they didn't have time to hope it was the lesser of the two. They had to act violently towards the violent act.

The world isn't all bad. When things like this happen everyone forgets all of the good. Reason and logic leaves the equation. Bombers have claimed more lives than these shootings. People want to cause harm, they can. You don't fix the problem by weakening people's resolve.

Throwing down a criminal isn't quite the same as taking shots at him in the dark when you've been awake for 45 seconds. Police officers receive training that the average civilian doesn't have regardless of whether or not they bought a gun. And being trained by some crackpot militia group in the back woods is not police training. I respect the police and the job they do and I respect the fact that they're hand picked and extensively trained to deal with these situations. Comparing a civilian with a gun and a police officer with a gun is not exactly a fair comparison.

LaHutti:

The point of my post isn't for someone to engage in combat. The point of my post is to be prepared. Taking away every honest citizens guns (from their home) and then telling them to wait for police to arrive is akin to putting them at the mercy of any bad element. Its a fact that violent crimes happen every day to good people. What would be the harm of a citizen training for the worst and hoping for the best and that same citizen then having a firearm in a secured area of the house? Those examples you gave can go either way. As an officer who takes pride in my profession, I realize this and as such train accordingly.

There are places with gun bans that also have the highest violent crime rates. How will taking away my ability to have a gun inside my home lower the crime rate? I will always tell a citizen to be prepared to protect their homes. Any police officer that says wait on us is not only a fool but shouldn't be an Officer. Burst blood vessels in both eyes, swelling on the left cheek, two black eyes, bruising around the neck from being chocked, is what I've seen when I looked into her face when she tried waiting on us to arrive. And then I've been faced with that question from family members: "Why did it take you so long to get there?" In that moment its very hard to explain the nature of police response times. If you are in your home you should be prepared to protect it. We are talking HOMES here not some idiot vigilant running around the city with a gun.

As for as "America." Using the same logic that "if we could just prevent one mass shooting its worth it." Well you know what many other country's that are such great places to live with better laws have fallen victim to mass shootings. O how quick we forget. Maybe if someone was prepared to return fire the incident in those other countries wouldn't have ended with so many dead. After all that country has the right rules / laws in place....Well....Guess what still happened? Enforce the laws we have in place, make them stricter, force those who want to keep a gun in their home to attend yearly training.....I don't care. But don't weaken my ability to protect my family because of random acts of evil. An evil act touches everyone's heart strings and causes their sight to become blurred.

Any police officer that says "It'll take us a while to get there so you better just start without us." Shouldn't be a police officer. It's just that simple. It's a completely irresponsible attitude.

I hope I don't need to shoot anyone, btw it's 16 rounds you added wrong.

My current job/business for the past 15 years isn't a police officer but I have many of the same duties as an armored car service such as Brinks, or Wells Fargo. I must carry each day, just like Cleveland cause I want to go home at night and be with my family too.

So you don't really know what's better for me as you've never spent a day in the city with me, going in and out of places all day and areas that many people wouldn't even get out of their car at.

If you're trained as a security guard for Brinks or Wells Fargo then you should carry a gun. You should also be trained when not to use it and how to store it safely when you're not on duty. That doesn't mean you start popping off shots at people who aren't in the process of trying to rob an armoured car when you're off duty. When you start doing that you return the weapon and go work at McDonalds.

What family members life? I'm not sure of many if any incidents where someone's home was broke into, the homeowner then tried to defend it with a firearm, thus causing the death of a family member. I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened but I'm sure its rarer than a U.S. player playing at 32red these days. However I can recall many incidents where a firearm has saved the lives of the family inside the home.

edit: I'm getting confused as to what the topic is at this point. I'm throwing in the towel. Mainly because I know these issues won't be solved like this. I will end in saying this though. The core of the problem isn't a homeowner that has a firearm in their bedroom.

Of course the issue won't be solved like this. Obama isn't part of the discussion.

 

[Cleveland]

Ahh, that's the Chicago way

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

One of my favorite movies

Interesting comments here as well:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The US gun crime is 10 times higher. And it's the only country that has lax gun laws. Sadly there is not much anyone can do about it. No one has either the answers or the guts to make a change.

Our large gang culture can account for a decent chunk of that. The amount of gangs / gang members in Houston, Texas alone probably rivals most countries.

 

[immortality]

Can I just say this, here in Northern Ireland, there have been an uprise in the number of pensioners homes being robbed and the pensioners themselves being badly injured, even hospitalized.

Now can an old person protect themselves against a young man or group of young men? simply NO, they WOULD be overpowered.

If the old person had a gun to protect themselves do you think they could defend themselves?

What makes it right for people in uniform to carry guns, couldn't some of them 'snap' and suffer nervous breakdowns, due to major changes in their personal lives and go on the rampage?

Just something to think about.

 

[Cleveland]

Throwing down a criminal isn't quite the same as taking shots at him in the dark when you've been awake for 45 seconds.


Any police officer that says "It'll take us a while to get there so you better just start without us." Shouldn't be a police officer. It's just that simple. It's a completely irresponsible attitude.

I know I said I wouldn't keep going but O well.

On a quick side note: Just for the record you missed the point / reason why I mentioned someone pulling away and you throwing them down. However I'm not planning on explaining it unless you just really want me to.

Where did I say "start with out us"??? Even with the fastest police response times we still can't and won't always get there. What part of that isn't clear? Me saying prepare yourself and take some damn responsibility in it is the same as saying start without us? Umm ok. You want an honest police officer I'll give you one. You want me to put sugar on everything, then I suggest you request another officer.

Its funny that you would think a civilian with a firearm in their home shouldn't be required to be just as proficient if not more proficient than an officer. Difference between me and you? I expect my wife to out shoot me, I expect my wife to be more safety conscious with a firearm than me. When you do something day in day out it's easier to get complaisant and forget the basics. Which is why our swat team routinely "goes back to the basics."

The benefit of not being on the front lines is that anything you "feel" will work....works just fine. Y'all are using these examples as if they are the norm and happen all the time. In that case lets all just throw out the worst case scenario even it it only has happened once in any given year and then say see that's why x should happen.

Show me these stats please of all of those home invasions that ended in a family member dead simply because the homeowner had a gun? I'm speaking from stats and I'm not simply stating how I "feel." Home invasion simply don't end the way you say - and I'm not talking the exceptions to the rule.

 

[Cleveland]

I'm posting this one just because it's bugging me and I would like to be clear on some things:

An officer is a position of servitude. Some people don't really grasp that concept. If I'm speaking about things as they relate to someones protection I don't take it lightly and it pains me when I feel as if I'm coming across as too callous.

There ARE constants here in America (I'll keep it limited to us) and being aware of them is important:

1. Bad people are out there.
2. Police will not always make it in time.
3. You should be prepared to deal with worst case incidents.

If you choose to have a firearm in your residence you and anyone else in your home should understand 4 concepts:

1. Index the trigger finger (finger off the trigger).
2. Only aim at what you are willing to shoot.
3. Be aware of your target and background.
4. Treat all guns as if they are loaded (even a toy gun).

I believe it was skiny who mentioned "rolling out of bed with a gun." If you are too groggy and still point the gun then you just broke the third rule. If you own a firearm and aren't aware of these rules then you shouldn't own a firearm. Requiring a citizen with a firearm in their home to take yearly evals / training would be a great thing.

The facts are simple: Home invasions do happen. Some will not end in any violence. Some will end in violence. I do wish we will make it to every call with plenty of time to spare....However it will not happen.

 

[Westland Bowl]

"No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts."- Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings.

The problem goes way back to Cain. There were certainly other fathers and mothers who lost children in these types of massacres who say that lack of gun controls caused those massacres but, overall, when all is said and done, it is really a spiritual problem which we continually ignore hence we will always have these problems.

 

[The Dude]

...

The problem goes way back to Cain...

It goes back further than that RE: Max's avatar.

 

[Reefer]

These are the two incidents that really changed the gunlaws in the uk

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

But banning guns did not stop gun crime

Home invasion or burgalry as it is known in the uk is a horiible for anyone to have to go through even if you are not there when the event takes place.
We are alowed to use reasonable force on a tresspasser in our homes but how to judge what is reasonable force is a bit of a grey area.
If they have broke in then i asume they have some sort of tool at least a screwdriver which is a lethal weapon so therefor i asume that it would be reasonable for me to defend myself with a knife

Here is a case where a well known gangster in the uk got a charge of murder dropped after lawers could not prove he did not act in self defense when a gunfight accured in his home

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Westland Bowl]

It goes back further than that RE: Max's avatar.

Oh, those bad monkeys!! I'm not a believer in macro-evolution but I get the humor!

 

[lauram]

It is well past the point of gun control issues.

These assault weapons and machine guns should never be available to any citizen. The gun control law should only be for use of a private issued gun. There is no need for individuals to be purchasing mass guns that can have 100 rounds sent off in a few seconds. The only use for those is for a person that is planning a attack and taking as many lives as they can before their own. Other issue is media attention household names are now of the shooters. We always recall their names not the victims names that passed away at their hands. This is the hardest part for me, they seem to down in glory for what they have done and how they have hurt and affected citizens. We need to keep on track the victims and recall them and focus on what life they had or would of had, not that the shooter ate pizza and played video games. If the media would slow down on putting these terrorist in the spotlight just maybe these incidents would decline also.
What other way to have your name all over the world then to take helpless children aim and fire.
My heart and sole go out to the families and community, as the days go on may you grow stronger.

 

[rockycatt]

.....and women don't?

A remark from the stone age there rocky.

The soldier comment....really??

these remarks from you are aimed directly at me personally [of course i am 6'2 ]

and the last time we locked horns in this manor I got 5 demerit points from maxd so i'm learning from that
not to go at it with you [who alerted max back then i didn't ]