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

[Cleveland]

at least my vehicle says so every time I go to the gas station (I'm about ready to go BACK to the horse and buggy...it has to be wayyyy cheaper)

Yes gas prices are out of control. Lets also include vending machine prices in that. A $1.50 for a snickers? Did it get bigger or something because it sure looks the same size to me? And I'll be damned if I'm paying a $ 1.00 for that small bag of salted peanuts. It's not even the full size bag that you get 2 for a dollar at the corner store. It's almost the size of the ones they use to give you on plane flights back in the day.

 

[kauphy]

@Cleveland and all the rest of the members from the US who have replied in this thread...we are beating a dead horse here. No one should have the ability to demean or belittle our beliefs or attitudes on how we deem it right to protect OUR families in our own homes. Until these people have "walked" in our shoes they can say and believe what they want. If you feel that having a gun in YOUR home to protect YOUR family, do it! If you NEVER have to use it, HALLELLUJAH!!!! BUT, if there is that one chance in a gazillion that it saves the life(s) of one family member(s), then HALLELLUJAH!!!!

@Cleveland, every day that you go to work, the minute you put on that uniform you risk YOUR life for mere strangers. Can anyone else say that of their job? Your pay sucks, you see atrocities many of us can only imagine on a daily basis, and how do you ever get any sleep (I'd be having continuous nightmares)? I just want to say THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!! for protecting the little people like me every single day.

To everyone else in the rest of the world...I'm happy that you live in such safe, secure environments. I'm happy you have no crime. That your children don't have to worry about pedophiles. You don't have to worry about terrorists flying planes into buildings. Or gun crazed idiots gunning people down in movie theatres or schools or psychopaths building bombs to blow up schools. You don't have to worry about rapists or violent home invasions. You surely live in Utopia!

What I don't get, if the US is such an evil place (by some of your standards in this thread), why are so many people clamoring to come here each and every day????

you have said it all and i agree. i have guns and hope never in my lifetime to have to use them to take anoughters life but if it came down to saving my family or someone eles i would without a doubt use it.

i have always had guns and always will. i,ve had a ar-15 and a few others that are deemed a no no for us to own according to some people but there is no better

stress reliver then to go out and shoot up a big mount of dirt

there are charts you can pull up that says gun free countrys are safer and then theres the one i was reading this morning that say Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union.

these are just charts anyone can make a chart and have it say what they want does,nt mean its true.

there is one that said the u.s sounds like a slum no it is not it is a great country but as with any country you will have evil people who do evil things with or without guns.

there were over 18 people that were killed most of them little ones and that will hit all of us who have a heart hard and will bring out the if he did,nt have a gun

it would,nt have happened no one can say that for sure. take 9-11 no guns take the oklahoma bombing no guns and then take the mall shooting it could have been worse but someone eles that had a gun stopped the nut from killing more.

i will always have guns caz that is what i believe in and then there are those that don,t like guns and will never have one i believe that is their right.

i have no right to tell them that they have to go out and buy a gun but on the other hand they don,t have the right to tell me that i can,t own one eather.

the world is made up of good and evil and sometimes evil wins.

 

[kauphy]

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

i agree if someone brakes into my home while i,m home i do not know what their intent is. weather its to just take my stuff or do my family harm.

and they will be shot weather its a 15 year old or not.

they are braking the law and they know it yet that does not stop them and they are doing it while i,m at home which would lead me to believe that they want

much more then my stereo.

 

[LaHutti]

Ok Westland ... are you for real ?
pulling out the extermination of 6 milion jews during world war 2, in gas chambers...has anything to do with the subject discussed in this thread how ?
actually...your whole post has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here...are you guys in any way shape or form at war....with yourself ?

You might as well say, in 1929 someone had turkey dinner in Russia, and after that 500 people were killed in China....so therefore civilians in USA should keep there weapons.
Geeez!
Over and out.

I won't post much more on the subject after this one. I found the below from another FB friend. I have not Snopified it though.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the message's bottom line is an armed population keeps their government honest or at least not invading their own citizens.

 

[kauphy]

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

o.k i don,t know if this will work or not but this is the father of one of the little girls that was killed.

he said his heart also goes out to the killer family and their suffering.

i just thought some of you would like to watch it.

 

[LaHutti]

so...let's cut the crap, and let me tll you what the difference is, between where I come from, and where you come from.

Where I come from, we have the right to vote, and elect the parlament who then make the laws, we have the police to make sure the laws are followed, and if they're not, make sure those who do not follow the laws are taken to court, where we have the last link of the chain, the judge, who can then send you to prison. (No death penalty here, not even within the system, let alone outside the system...sorry guys).

This whole process is protected by something called "human rights"...human rights also hold the right for "everyone to have a fair trial"...ever heard of that ?.. They haven't in China, but I would have thought Americans knew about it.

So what all you trigger happy people are telling me is, that it's perfectly fine for any civilian in USA to skip every single one of the links of the chain and be the judge and kill someone for breaking into a house. ?
That is in every possible way both sick and frightening...every single way I can think of!
We fight every single day for peoples right all over the world...we in fucking vade countries because the people do not have basic human rights, and you are saying that any one civilian can take away someones rights and f.... kill them for breaking into a house to steal a stereo ?....are you people f... serious ???
I'm sorry, but I just can't have this discussion any more.
Merry Christmas everyone.

i agree if someone brakes into my home while i,m home i do not know what their intent is. weather its to just take my stuff or do my family harm.

and they will be shot weather its a 15 year old or not.

they are braking the law and they know it yet that does not stop them and they are doing it while i,m at home which would lead me to believe that they want

much more then my stereo.

 

[kauphy]

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.

WOW you,ve said it all and in a very good way. my husband was in law inforcement and he said you hit it right on the head. by the way thank you for all you do.

 

[ksech]

Not to defend Westland's post, but...I thought this was a debate about gun control??? Which is what his post was about, although it DIDN'T pertain to the US, so I guess that's why it isn't relevant???

So, gun control in other countries can not be debated also? Only the US can be faulted for their LACK of gun control? Which makes us gun happy, delusional, ghost seekers who think we live in the Wild West. And we do NOT or SHOULD not have the right to protect our families in our own homes against a person(s) who illegally breaks into our home (which is a violation in itself!) because we are nothing more than trigger happy fools. (Sorry, I just want to make sure I've gotten all this right) And we should ask what their intent is FIRST, so we don't mistakenly shoot an innocent who only wants to rob us (even though they may be crazed on drugs and carrying a gun or knife...we may not get the chance to ask first, but that won't matter...THEY will still be alive!).

I pray to God that NO ONE here is EVER confronted ANYWHERE by some crazed lunatic wielding a gun. That puts you in a situation where you wished you had a gun to protect those you love more than life itself...

 

[kauphy]

so...let's cut the crap, and let me tll you what the difference is, between where I come from, and where you come from.

Where I come from, we have the right to vote, and elect the parlament who then make the laws, we have the police to make sure the laws are followed, and if they're not, make sure those who do not follow the laws are taken to court, where we have the last link of the chain, the judge, who can then send you to prison. (No death penalty here, not even within the system, let alone outside the system...sorry guys).

This whole process is protected by something called "human rights"...human rights also hold the right for "everyone to have a fair trial"...ever heard of that ?.. They haven't in China, but I would have thought Americans knew about it.

So what all you trigger happy people are telling me is, that it's perfectly fine for any civilian in USA to skip every single one of the links of the chain and be the judge and kill someone for breaking into a house. ?
That is in every possible way both sick and frightening...every single way I can think of!
We fight every single day for peoples right all over the world...we in fucking vade countries because the people do not have basic human rights, and you are saying that any one civilian can take away someones rights and f.... kill them for breaking into a house to steal a stereo ?....are you people f... serious ???
I'm sorry, but I just can't have this discussion any more.
Merry Christmas everyone.

o.k your talking about human rights. well let me ask you something do i not have the right if someone brakes into my home to keep myself and my family safe anyway i can?

so i should just walk up to the person and ask him why did you brake in to steal something or to rape and kill all of us?

wow that makes alot of sense.

would it make you feel better if i did,nt shoot him or them and just stabed them to death or beat them half senseless so later they can come back and sue me?

if they are coming into my house they are braking the law and in doing so have given up their rights as a human.

you all make it sound like the bad guy is the good guy caz all hes doing is braking in to take your stuff that you worked hard to get or maybe to end someones life and those of

us who say that we would use a gun to keep our love ones safe are the bad guys for even thinking such a thing. wow no wonder there so much crap going on in the world today.

 

[LaHutti]

You can keep repeating yourself, about how bad it is in America, compared to the rest of the world, but it won't change the fact, that it's not like that anywhere else, and "anywhere else" do not need guns in private homes, and civilians do not kill other people as they see fit.
I've said ... and a lot of other people have said it too....it takes more than gun control to get rid of the problems that apparently exist there, but even if I say THAT, I'm insulting people....
I have NO intention insulting people, but if saying it like it is, is insulting to Americans, I really don't know what to do, but keep my nose out the discussion.

Not to defend Westland's post, but...I thought this was a debate about gun control??? Which is what his post was about, although it DIDN'T pertain to the US, so I guess that's why it isn't relevant???

So, gun control in other countries can not be debated also? Only the US can be faulted for their LACK of gun control? Which makes us gun happy, delusional, ghost seekers who think we live in the Wild West. And we do NOT or SHOULD not have the right to protect our families in our own homes against a person(s) who illegally breaks into our home (which is a violation in itself!) because we are nothing more than trigger happy fools. (Sorry, I just want to make sure I've gotten all this right) And we should ask what their intent is FIRST, so we don't mistakenly shoot an innocent who only wants to rob us (even though they may be crazed on drugs and carrying a gun or knife...we may not get the chance to ask first, but that won't matter...THEY will still be alive!).

I pray to God that NO ONE here is EVER confronted ANYWHERE by some crazed lunatic wielding a gun. That puts you in a situation where you wished you had a gun to protect those you love more than life itself...

 

[Simmo!]

so...let's cut the crap, and let me tll you what the difference is, between where I come from, and where you come from.

Where I come from, we have the right to vote, and elect the parlament who then make the laws, we have the police to make sure the laws are followed, and if they're not, make sure those who do not follow the laws are taken to court, where we have the last link of the chain, the judge, who can then send you to prison. (No death penalty here, not even within the system, let alone outside the system...sorry guys).

This whole process is protected by something called "human rights"...human rights also hold the right for "everyone to have a fair trial"...ever heard of that ?.. They haven't in China, but I would have thought Americans knew about it.

So what all you trigger happy people are telling me is, that it's perfectly fine for any civilian in USA to skip every single one of the links of the chain and be the judge and kill someone for breaking into a house. ?
That is in every possible way both sick and frightening...every single way I can think of!
We fight every single day for peoples right all over the world...we in fucking vade countries because the people do not have basic human rights, and you are saying that any one civilian can take away someones rights and f.... kill them for breaking into a house to steal a stereo ?....are you people f... serious ???
I'm sorry, but I just can't have this discussion any more.
Merry Christmas everyone.

Calm down and kep the conversation civil please. Passionate or not about the subject, you should respect other people's opinions.

Especially as, in this case, the poster you were referring to did not say they would kill someone for breaking into their house to steal a stereo - they said they weren't prepared to wait around to see if that intruder would harm their family.


Anyway, whatever your thoughts, please cut the swearing and aggressive stance.

 

[LaHutti]

Sure thing Simmo!

Discussions like these do tend to get heated because, as everyone can tell, the mentality and culture is SO different, that it's almost impossible to get these mentalities to meet at a level, where anyone will be happy.
I apalogize if I've, once again, offended anyone, but have to say, I stand by every single word I've said in this thread, and the poster I was responding to, did in fact say, that they would shoot anyone breaking into their house, and not wait to see, if they were there to harm her or not, and whether they were 15 years old or older. Could very well be, that the 15 year old was there to steal her stereo, as that's what.... I estimate 95% of all break-ins are for. Not many breakins are done with the intention to harm or kill.
I won't do it again tho

Calm down and kep the conversation civil please. Passionate or not about the subject, you should respect other people's opinions.

Especially as, in this case, the poster you were referring to did not say they would kill someone for breaking into their house to steal a stereo - they said they weren't prepared to wait around to see if that intruder would harm their family.


Anyway, whatever your thoughts, please cut the swearing and aggressive stance.

 

[just play]

so...let's cut the crap, and let me tll you what the difference is, between where I come from, and where you come from.

Where I come from, we have the right to vote, and elect the parlament who then make the laws, we have the police to make sure the laws are followed, and if they're not, make sure those who do not follow the laws are taken to court, where we have the last link of the chain, the judge, who can then send you to prison. (No death penalty here, not even within the system, let alone outside the system...sorry guys).

This whole process is protected by something called "human rights"...human rights also hold the right for "everyone to have a fair trial"...ever heard of that ?.. They haven't in China, but I would have thought Americans knew about it.

So what all you trigger happy people are telling me is, that it's perfectly fine for any civilian in USA to skip every single one of the links of the chain and be the judge and kill someone for breaking into a house. ?
That is in every possible way both sick and frightening...every single way I can think of!
We fight every single day for peoples right all over the world...we in fucking vade countries because the people do not have basic human rights, and you are saying that any one civilian can take away someones rights and f.... kill them for breaking into a house to steal a stereo ?....are you people f... serious ???
I'm sorry, but I just can't have this discussion any more.
Merry Christmas everyone.

I know your passionate about this. I don't take too much offense to this post because you are passionate. I'll try to explain in an easy way to understand as quick as possible....

We fight every single day for peoples right all over the world...we in fucking vade countries because the people do not have basic human rights, and you are saying that any one civilian can take away someones rights and f.... kill them for breaking into a house to steal a stereo ?....are you people f... serious ???

No one is saying they would kill anyone for trying to steal a stereo. We are saying.... we are not going to say "Hi, how are you Mr. Criminal, what are you here for?" I believe most people are saying they would pull their gun out at the criminal to scare him, (not shooting, just showing him you have one) if he was just there to steal a stereo he will run out. BUT if he is a killer, rapist and pulls out his gun, we will use ours to protect our families. That's totally different than just shooting.

I hope that explains it a little better.

 

[ksech]

LMAO I don't think I have said ANYWHERE in any of my posts it is worse here than anywhere else in the world...PLEASE...do not twist my words to fit the way YOU want them to sound.
1) I wouldn't KNOW what it's like anywhere else as I have NEVER been anywhere else. And it's actually quite peaceful in the area in which I live.
2) We vote here also
3) We have police here too and court systems and believe it or not judges too!
4) We do however have the death penalty in some states (not all!) for those human beings who commit horrendous crimes against other human beings. I'm glad you are for human rights, but certain crimes void out a persons' RIGHT to their human rights, sorry...just my opinion.
5) If a person breaks into my home to steal my stereo when I'm not home, they don't get shot...end of story. I call the police, they investigate, hopefully I get my stereo back, robber MAYBE goes to jail (but probably gets a year or two of probation...no jail time) If they break in while I'm home and they KNOW I'm home, different story...
6) No one here said anything about being judge and jury...it's about the right to protect oneself and ones family inside ones home. Just because YOU don't own a gun to protect your family THAT is YOUR right! YOU choose not to own a gun. I choose not to own a handgun. I own hunting rifles, I hunt for food like many here have stated. BUT if I had to use one of these rifles to defend one of my children from a person or persons who was threatening bodily harm...Yes, I could shoot them or I could stab them with a knife or I could bludgeon them with a baseball bat. It's called self-preservation.

Let me ask you this...if someone attacked your mother, sister, wife, daughter, son in your home...would you merely stand there and do nothing???

 

[The Dude]

...Where I come from, we have the right to vote, and elect the parlament who then make the laws, we have the police to make sure the laws are followed, and if they're not, make sure those who do not follow the laws are taken to court, where we have the last link of the chain, the judge, who can then send you to prison. (No death penalty here, not even within the system, let alone outside the system...sorry guys)...

As Simmo mentioned, chill out - we're discussing the differences in cultures - and they are certainly intertwined. Europeans may not have a death penalty at the moment, but there has been three instances of genocide in the past century - so no comfort zone there.

Before getting judgmental, please try to place yourself in other people's shoes. I agree that's easier to do if you've been there - done that, but please refrain from a "my culture is better than yours" stance. That attitude will push some serious buttons and the thread will spin into a flaming wreck that will end up being closed.

 

[Nifty29]

o.k your talking about human rights. well let me ask you something do i not have the right if someone brakes into my home to keep myself and my family safe anyway i can?

so i should just walk up to the person and ask him why did you brake in to steal something or to rape and kill all of us?

wow that makes alot of sense.

would it make you feel better if i did,nt shoot him or them and just stabed them to death or beat them half senseless so later they can come back and sue me?

if they are coming into my house they are braking the law and in doing so have given up their rights as a human.

you all make it sound like the bad guy is the good guy caz all hes doing is braking in to take your stuff that you worked hard to get or maybe to end someones life and those of

us who say that we would use a gun to keep our love ones safe are the bad guys for even thinking such a thing. wow no wonder there so much crap going on in the world today.

When I read something like this I can kinda understand where lahutti is coming from.

Are you really saying that someone breaking into your house has forfeited all their human rights and can/should be put down like a rabid dog? I don't know any other way to read your statements.

It certainly explains the incredibly high number of gun related deaths in the USA. Shoot first....ask questions later.

What the USA doesn't understand is that guns breed guns. In the UK, the police don't carry firearms, save for special groups. The gun crime in the UK is comparably low, as most criminals don't carry them.

The USA should look at their gun laws, but more importantly, should look at what is making these people go off the planet and kill dozens of others. It has to come from deep within society somewhere, and until that society takes a long hard look at how they treat the mentally ill and those on the fringes, more and more innocent people will die....guns or no guns.

 

[LaHutti]

I hear you Bryan.

I actually HAVE been there tho, and have been married to an American. I know what I'm talking about...I'm not "just" some european trying to tell anyone how to run things. I'm an European who has actually seen both sides, ...and who is, at this moment living about 20 minutes from The US border, so I still do spend a lot of time down there. I'm a bit like you...only you went the other way
I know it can get heated, AND I know about the pushing buttons ... my American ex-wife had a bunch of brothers, and we had quite a few heated debates at time They had an opinion about 2 things, and that was about it: .. I don't wanna pay taxes, and don't you take my gun away from me ... that kinda thing, but it was enough to get into some bad shit at times, since my opinions on both matters are quite different .

Anyway .. as I said, I'll chill out, and try not push any buttons

As Simmo mentioned, chill out - we're discussing the differences in cultures - and they are certainly intertwined. Europeans may not have a death penalty at the moment, but there has been three instances of genocide in the past century - so no comfort zone there.

Before getting judgmental, please try to place yourself in other people's shoes. I agree that's easier to do if you've been there - done that, but please refrain from a "my culture is better than yours" stance. That attitude will push some serious buttons and the thread will spin into a flaming wreck that will end up being closed.

 

[kauphy]

When I read something like this I can kinda understand where lahutti is coming from.

Are you really saying that someone breaking into your house has forfeited all their human rights and can/should be put down like a rabid dog? I don't know any other way to read your statements.

It certainly explains the incredibly high number of gun related deaths in the USA. Shoot first....ask questions later.

What the USA doesn't understand is that guns breed guns. In the UK, the police don't carry firearms, save for special groups. The gun crime in the UK is comparably low, as most criminals don't carry them.

The USA should look at their gun laws, but more importantly, should look at what is making these people go off the planet and kill dozens of others. It has to come from deep within society somewhere, and until that society takes a long hard look at how they treat the mentally ill and those on the fringes, more and more innocent people will die....guns or no guns.

yes they have lost their right as a peson sorry maybe i should have put that. i don,t see why anyone would think its o.k for someone to brake into your home as

long as they are only going to take your stuff. whats wrong is wrong no matter what their intent is.

and if they are only going to take stuff they would do it when no one is home.

would i shoot someone if i saw them leaving my house with my t.v or anything eles no i would not.

we in the u.s are not hiding behind our beds waitting for someone to brake in so we can shoot them. we have our guns caz we choose to have them not so we kill the frist person we see.

believe it or not most gun owners would reather keep something from happening and not have to use our guns and i,m sure that most the people in this thread

would try something eles frist it is not shoot frist ask ? later with most of us.

 

[ksech]

Okay, lets try this from a different angle...
1) A person with the intent to ONLY steal...will usually "case" the place to see when the residents aren't home. Which means, they only intend to steal valuables, no person to person contact involved.
2) A person who breaks into a home while the residents ARE home usually has the intent to commit some sort of bodily harm (rape, assault, murder). This is where the right to own a gun is coming into play. We aren't talking about the casual thief looking to steal a stereo (this would be a person from the first case scenerio).

Our "mentality" is the right to defend and protect what is ours, mainly our family. A person who breaks into your home, they have committed a crime...they have violated your space. And you NEVER feel safe and secure again once that happens. So, their human rights have been voided, not mine for protecting my own. They are the criminal, not me. And their human rights do NOT supercede mine. If they are committing a criminal act, they take the chance of running into a person/s who MAY have the ability to protect themselves (whether it be with a gun, a dog OR a baseball bat). That is THEIR choice, their risk of committing the criminal act.

 

[just play]

Okay, lets try this from a different angle...
1) A person with the intent to ONLY steal...will usually "case" the place to see when the residents aren't home. Which means, they only intend to steal valuables, no person to person contact involved.
2) A person who breaks into a home while the residents ARE home usually has the intent to commit some sort of bodily harm (rape, assault, murder). This is where the right to own a gun is coming into play. We aren't talking about the casual thief looking to steal a stereo (this would be a person from the first case scenerio).

Our "mentality" is the right to defend and protect what is ours, mainly our family. A person who breaks into your home, they have committed a crime...they have violated your space. And you NEVER feel safe and secure again once that happens. So, their human rights have been voided, not mine for protecting my own. They are the criminal, not me. And their human rights do NOT supercede mine. If they are committing a criminal act, they take the chance of running into a person/s who MAY have the ability to protect themselves (whether it be with a gun, a dog OR a baseball bat). That is THEIR choice, their risk of committing the criminal act.

FINALLY!

Criminals are the ones commiting the crime, not the person in the home. It's like the homeowners are the bad guys, not the criminal???

And you are absolutely correct their human rights do not supercede the homeowner.

And again, your last sentence sums it up perfectly. (actually this whole post is perfect)

 

[kauphy]

 

[skiny]

i agree if someone brakes into my home while i,m home i do not know what their intent is. weather its to just take my stuff or do my family harm.

and they will be shot weather its a 15 year old or not.

they are braking the law and they know it yet that does not stop them and they are doing it while i,m at home which would lead me to believe that they want

much more then my stereo.

Reading that someone would shoot a 15 year old and then if he lives, find out later what he was doing is really kind of sad. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes me believe that the average home owner shouldn't be armed. Believe it or not - not everyone who breaks the law deserves to die and unless you're a judge in a state that has the death penalty you don't have the authority to decide who does and who doesn't. The problem with people who believe in this constitutional right to own guns is that they also seem to think they have a constitutional right to shoot them.... at other people. A gun is a lethal weapon and when you fire it you're using lethal force. Even police officers reserve lethal force for very specific circumstances. They certainly don't use it because there is a chance that someone might mean them harm.

Ok Westland ... are you for real ?
pulling out the extermination of 6 milion jews during world war 2, in gas chambers...has anything to do with the subject discussed in this thread how ?
actually...your whole post has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here...are you guys in any way shape or form at war....with yourself ?

You might as well say, in 1929 someone had turkey dinner in Russia, and after that 500 people were killed in China....so therefore civilians in USA should keep there weapons.
Geeez!
Over and out.

I didn't bother with that post because it had nothing to do with anything that's happening in the USA. It's one thing to say that people need to own guns so they can protect themselves from burglars. I don't agree with it but at least it's within the realm of being a sensible assumption. Suggesting that US citizens need to arm themselves because at some point someone is going to try to exterminate them is just silly. And if you're going to be a conspiracy theorist you really need to pick one. You can't seriously believe them all.

FINALLY!

Criminals are the ones commiting the crime, not the person in the home. It's like the homeowners are the bad guys, not the criminal???

And you are absolutely correct their human rights do not supercede the homeowner.

And again, your last sentence sums it up perfectly. (actually this whole post is perfect)

I think part of the problem here is that some people think if you advocate gun control you automatically think that people who own guns are bad people. I think we can agree that most people who own guns aren't bad people. If they start shooting 15 year olds I might have a different opinion of them but for the most part I think most home owners who have decided to keep a gun aren't really different from anyone else. Personally, what I think we have here is an agreement on what the problem is and vastly different opinions on what is required to fix it.

Many people have said they own guns in this thread and I don't think any less of them for doing so. I'll be thanking their posts and joking around with them in the next thread just like always. I just strongly disagree with their opinion that allowing average citizens to be armed is doing more good than harm. I think the only way to reduce the amount of gun related incidents whether they're armed robberies, mass shootings or accidents in the home is to reduce the amount of readily available firearms.

Some people think to relieve traffic you have to build more roads. Some people think you have to convince people to stop using their cars as often. The reality is the answer is usually somewhere in the middle. Personally, I'd like to see more suggestions and ideas in this thread to help reduce the phenomenal amount of gun related crimes and deaths in the US rather than just an endless circle of meaningless statistics that really don't prove anything and specific instances where a gun was helpful and where it was not.

My posts here have been fewer and farther between because I'm really just repeating myself anyway. It's unlikely anyone here is really going to be convinced they were wrong in their opinions. I'd like to hear some suggestions though from people who believe that anyone who wants to own a gun should be allowed to have one as to how else the rate of gun crimes can be reduced. What level of control would be considered acceptable? How much work should be involved in retaining your right to own a gun?

 

[Westland Bowl]

Ok Westland ... are you for real ?
pulling out the extermination of 6 milion jews during world war 2, in gas chambers...has anything to do with the subject discussed in this thread how ?
actually...your whole post has absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here...are you guys in any way shape or form at war....with yourself ?

You might as well say, in 1929 someone had turkey dinner in Russia, and after that 500 people were killed in China....so therefore civilians in USA should keep there weapons.
Geeez!
Over and out.

FWIW, I actually inserted a question mark (?) beside the 13 million Jews figure but took it out because I did not want to mix the message, namely that guns, whatever form and power, serve not only to keep criminals at bay but also provide SOME type of defense against one's government. Millions of people, including Jews, in recent history were not so fortunate to have any means to do so.

 

[Nifty29]

View attachment 36856

Exactly.

Furthermore, if you don't POSSESS a gun you can't FIRE it.

Unless you know of a foolproof system that can read someone's hearts and minds, and therefor find a way to make sure the "evil-doers" cannot own guns, your post is actually a good argument for banning guns altogether.

You see, practically ANYONE in the US can own a gun. When you consider the human capacity for evil, that means there are a HUGE number of Columbines and Sandy Hooks just waiting to happen.

I also notice your earlier comment about "we would never use our guns for hurting anyone. We just keep them for the sick assholes etc to protect our children". So....if someone breaks into your home, you would point the gun (unloaded) and have a little "bang" flag pop out? You would shoot the intruder....AFAIK, if you shoot them, they are going to be hurt. In fact, your guns ARE for hurting people.

The biggest problem I can see is that there are a core group of US society that feel their right to own a gun is more important than just about anything else in the world. When you add that to the ridiculously high number of gun related deaths in the US, you don't have to be Einstein to figure out where the issues lay, and who is responsible.

As an aside, this Lanza woman is partly to blame for her son's actions. It appears that she actively encouraged him to use guns and had "family outings" to the gun range. IMO, that's the same as taking the family to a "bayonet range" where they can learn to kill people with sharp objects. You don't have to delve too far into the shooter's past to see why he was so f'ed up.

If the US wants to rid themselves of these massacres, they need to examine what it is about their way of life that drives people, particularly young people, to be so enraged and angry at the world that they feel innocent people need to die. My research over the years has led me to believe that in the "land of the free", one's amount of freedom is directly proportional to one's wealth and/or privilege. If you don't fit the mould, especially in the conservative religious areas, you are pretty much worthless and tossed into the waste basket. A whole lot of mentally ill people are left roaming the streets when they should be in care....but they cannot afford it, so tough luck.

I'll wager you one thing. The minute a federal politician, or other wealthy powerful citizen loses a child in one of these massacres, you'll see swift action like you've never seen before. The way things stand, the gun lobby have too much power, and the average American too little.

I'll just re-iterate my main point. If you don't have a gun, you can't fire it, and you can't shoot dozens of people. Not only do you need to deal with the guns, you need to deal with the people possessing them, and the fastest and quickest way to make a start is a gun amnesty/recall.

 

[Nifty29]

FWIW, I actually inserted a question mark (?) beside the 13 million Jews figure but took it out because I did not want to mix the message, namely that guns, whatever form and power, serve not only to keep criminals at bay but also provide SOME type of defense against one's government. Millions of people, including Jews, in recent history were not so fortunate to have any means to do so.

WTF?

There is no need to inflame the thread with sick pictures like this that are totally irrelevant to the topic.

Do you REALLY think that Jews owning guns would have stopped the Nazis? Sorry, but you are so way off it's embarrassing.

 

[ksech]

We have very stringent laws pertaining to handguns, but none for rifles, shot guns and I am assuming some of these assault rifles (someone from the US please correct or redirect here...THANKS!). I don't know how it works state by state for hunting licenses either. I do know in NY if you don't hunt every year, you have to take a hunter safety course. And any new hunter is required to take a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting permit.

Now, a co-worker and I were looking through the local Wal-mart ad the other day and you can BUY a semi-automatic similar to the type this person used in the school shootings. I don't know what the requirements are to purchase one, but I'm not about to go and find out either. I just find it interesting that Wal-Mart sells these in the sporting goods department...

Maybe a gun owner should have to take a safety renewal test like we do our driver licenses or whatever. The problem is, it won't stop the bad guys from obtaining guns illegally.

So, you take away the guns from the "good" (meaning homeowners, women, single parent, or insert relevant persona) guys and the bad guys still have theirs. Now the bad guy KNOWS the good guy is defenseless, it won't stop violent crimes from happening. But more than likely violent crimes will increase, because the bad guys now know there is NO threat from their intended victim(s).

And not to derail here, but you also need to look and see if there is drug use involved. Drugs and guns almost go hand in hand. Inner city gangbangers don't brawl or get into knife fights over territory. They "war" with guns over drug trafficking. Hardcore addicts will do ANYTHING to obtain money for their next fix.

So, find a way to stop the drugs and make guns less accessible for criminal use. Insure/guarantee the people their human rights won't ever be violated in a violent nature. Educate parents on how to tell when their "child" isn't " quite right" and ADMIT they need help , and get it for them before it's too late...

 

[Nifty29]

We have very stringent laws pertaining to handguns, but none for rifles, shot guns and I am assuming some of these assault rifles (someone from the US please correct or redirect here...THANKS!). I don't know how it works state by state for hunting licenses either. I do know in NY if you don't hunt every year, you have to take a hunter safety course. And any new hunter is required to take a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting permit.

Now, a co-worker and I were looking through the local Wal-mart ad the other day and you can BUY a semi-automatic similar to the type this person used in the school shootings. I don't know what the requirements are to purchase one, but I'm not about to go and find out either. I just find it interesting that Wal-Mart sells these in the sporting goods department...

Maybe a gun owner should have to take a safety renewal test like we do our driver licenses or whatever. The problem is, it won't stop the bad guys from obtaining guns illegally.

So, you take away the guns from the "good" (meaning homeowners, women, single parent, or insert relevant persona) guys and the bad guys still have theirs. Now the bad guy KNOWS the good guy is defenseless, it won't stop violent crimes from happening. But more than likely violent crimes will increase, because the bad guys now know there is NO threat from their intended victim(s).And not to derail here, but you also need to look and see if there is drug use involved. Drugs and guns almost go hand in hand. Inner city gangbangers don't brawl or get into knife fights over territory. They "war" with guns over drug trafficking. Hardcore addicts will do ANYTHING to obtain money for their next fix.

So, find a way to stop the drugs and make guns less accessible for criminal use. Insure/guarantee the people their human rights won't ever be violated in a violent nature. Educate parents on how to tell when their "child" isn't " quite right" and ADMIT they need help , and get it for them before it's too late...

Hi Ksech.

Actually the opposite is true, given the UK situation where the police are mostly unarmed (no guns), and as a result, the criminals are rarely using firearms either...certainly not anywhere near the extent that US criminals do.

Let's face it....criminals are always going to be able to get guns. In the vast majority of cases involving break-in killings, it is personal and not just some junkie wanting to steal some rings i.e. someone has deliberately gone to the house to kill specific people, and if someone storms in your front door with a semi-automatic wanting to kill you, you've pretty much had it, unless you sit watching television with a rifle in your lap. The only other reason someone breaks into your house is to steal something, and as someone else pointed out, it is nearly always done when nobody is home. If it happens that someone IS home and the burglar didn't know (some are that stupid), then a baseball bat or a plank of wood would be sufficient to drive them off, or disable them until police arrive......IF there were no guns in homes. You see where I'm going with this? Many burglars DO carry guns because if they ARE confronted by the homeowner, it is most likely going to be with a firearm.

I have no doubt that this latest tragedy would not have happened, or may have involved far less deaths, if the shooter did not have such easy access to firearms. I still cannot grasp why any regular citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle....I never could, and never will.

 

[Westland Bowl]

WTF?

There is no need to inflame the thread with sick pictures like this that are totally irrelevant to the topic.

Do you REALLY think that Jews owning guns would have stopped the Nazis? Sorry, but you are so way off it's embarrassing.

The picture shows truth.... not pretty, but relevant in my opinion. I do believe Jews owning guns would have a fighting chance than NOT having them! Common sense to me!

 

[Cleveland]

Hi Ksech.

Actually the opposite is true, given the UK situation where the police are mostly unarmed (no guns), and as a result, the criminals are rarely using firearms either...certainly not anywhere near the extent that US criminals do.

Let's face it....criminals are always going to be able to get guns. In the vast majority of cases involving break-in killings, it is personal and not just some junkie wanting to steal some rings i.e. someone has deliberately gone to the house to kill specific people, and if someone storms in your front door with a semi-automatic wanting to kill you, you've pretty much had it, unless you sit watching television with a rifle in your lap. The only other reason someone breaks into your house is to steal something, and as someone else pointed out, it is nearly always done when nobody is home. If it happens that someone IS home and the burglar didn't know (some are that stupid), then a baseball bat or a plank of wood would be sufficient to drive them off, or disable them until police arrive......IF there were no guns in homes. You see where I'm going with this? Many burglars DO carry guns because if they ARE confronted by the homeowner, it is most likely going to be with a firearm.

I have no doubt that this latest tragedy would not have happened, or may have involved far less deaths, if the shooter did not have such easy access to firearms. I still cannot grasp why any regular citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle....I never could, and never will.

Before I move on to what I wanted to say: Lets not forget the countless ex-boyfriends / ex-spouses / stalkers that come to the home to cause harm. Yes the number of those calls are high. It's so many other crimes that are committed. It's not simply a poor 15 year old trying to get a stereo. People need a way to protect themselves. I still haven't heard someone offer up a solution for any of these victims that don't have a gun and didn't provoke their attackers. When I mentioned that call we received about the lady beaten by her husband that was a very real call. We didn't make it in time. She sustained two black eyes, burst blood vessels in both eyes from being choked to the point of near death, bruising around the neck area, swelling on one cheek, and passed out twice. When you have a police unit and a civilian unit dedicated to helping victims of violent crimes then it is a very real problem. And I'm not even talking about crimes that involved a gun. And I am still talking inside the residence. Suggest a way / method of protecting themselves.

Back to other point:

Google violent home invasions houston tx. Believe it or not some people break in with the intent to steal and will assault / kill the residence for no reason other than that they are home. There are entire gangs in different areas that proudly brag about this as their m.o.

Start by trying to fix the other root issues. Maybe our lack of quality social programs is the cause or not giving our youth enough options to avoid falling into this lifestyle. I'm not sure what it is but until its fixed you simply cannot take away guns in homes.

To say that they bring a firearm to the break in because they think the homeowner has one isn't fair. Look at that mindset of the criminal? It's my home. They shouldn't be trying HARDER to succeed in over powering me in my home. That's akin to saying they brought other friends with them (as gangs do) because they knew the subject is a trained fighter. That mindset isn't caused by a gun in the home. That's a deeper society issue.

Watch my house damnit. Make sure you know my movements and that of my family. THEN break in. Well I'm sure my 2 akitas will have something to say about it but you get my overall point.

 

[Cleveland]

I wanted to add this to my other post but it has already gotten so long:

Not only is the amount of reasons for someone to break in high (ex-boyfriends / husbands, stalkers, rapist etc) but the damage caused is also varying (mental and physical).

Trying to comfort a single lady living by herself who wasn't even home during the break in is very hard. She chose not to stay at her residence for a few nights because she was that scared and had no means of self protection. Typically I tell them that it was a good sign that they broke in when she was gone as that normally means they don't want a confrontation.

As I've said offer up some solutions. Or if you can't let us try to fix ourselves first as a society, then once that's done I'll gladly hand over my gun and that of my spouse......well maybe....or one of them for sure

 

[Nifty29]

The picture shows truth.... not pretty, but relevant in my opinion. I do believe Jews owning guns would have a fighting chance than NOT having them! Common sense to me!

It's totally irrelevant, and inflammatory IMO.

Do you know what happened in the Warsaw ghetto? Getting hold of piles of guns didn't help them in the end. It might have killed some Germans, but it didn't save any Jews. In fact, it most likely hardened the resolve of the sick Nazi bastards, and may well have swayed some "on the fence" German civilians and soldiers (and there were plenty) to the Nazi way of thinking.

Guns breed more guns. Violence breeds more violence.

It's not an opinion....just look at recent US history. It's a fact.

@Cleveland.

I know what you're saying. People have the right to defend their homes. Over here, we do it with security systems and/or deadlocks on windows and doors etc. We don't seem to need guns here.....so why do people in the US need them? I'll tell you.....because US citizens feel it is their basic human right to own a gun and shoot anyone who invades or steals their property (and that amendment actually referred to bearing arms in a militia/army not every tom dick and harry on the street)....and so, more and more people own more and more guns i.e. guns breed more guns. "My neighbours both have guns.....geez I better get one too."...it's human nature.

Shootings involving neighbours or domestic disputes, along with burglaries and home invasions are extremely rare in Australia. Why? Almost nobody has a gun. I have no doubt that, if similar disputes happened in the US, one of the parties would have gone inside in the heat of the moment, and come out and shot the other party. If you don't have a gun in the home, you can't do that. Nothing is stopping you jumping the fence and trying to strangle the other party, but at least they have a chance to defend themselves and the fight may well cease when/if both parties come to their senses. You can't take back a bullet.

 

[LaHutti]

What I find amazing is, that this huge country doesn't look out into the world, and won't listen to anyone, where crime rates are a lot lower, and where killings/shootings are a rare occurance....hence there must be something other countries are doing that works, and there is obviously something USA is doing that does NOT work.
Reading this thread and hearing the opinions of the otherwise lovely people, who live in that country does explain a lot.

As Nifty said .. if people can't get into your house in the first place, or if your house is secured in a way that'll buy you time, like alarms...REAL alarms, not just a fake sign saying there is an alarm installed. Many insurance companies in Europe will, at least in part, pay to have an alarm istalled in your house, because it works.
Even a local alarm, that'll wake up the whole neighborhood should scare most intruders away.
Private security companies with an alarm hooked up directly from your house is another option.
There are SO many effective ways to protect a house, if you really feel the need, that are WAY better than a gun, and the wild west attitude. Violence DOES breed violence...it's a proven fact, and common knowledge.
We teach our kids this, and teach them that fightining is not the right way to handle things, because we KNOW, that violence breeds violence, and then we go out and arm ourselves for a war in our own house ?

No matter how we turn this, the fact is that as long there are guns involved, it will most likely result in someone being dead, because that is what guns are made for....to kill. Today it may be the guy who broke in to your house, but tomorrow it could be you, and next week your weapon, or someone else's weapon, not stored correctly, could be stolen and used in a mass killing, because it's available.

I understand Clevelands frustration, as a police officer, and I, as anyone else, ...except for the crooks ofcourse....appreciate what he and thousands of others, have chosen to do for a living...I really do, but the only way to limit the number of weapons, is to start taking them out....one by one. Getting more and then more and then more weapons is the only thing that WON'T stop the killings.
As for the "criminals" having weapons. Sure some will still have weapons, and some criminals....mostly gangs, have (illegal) weapons where I came from, and they use those to kill other gangmembrs, who ALSO have (illegal) weapons. very VERY rarely...I can't think of one case...do you hear about civilians, not involved in any crime (gang activity in one way or another), being faced with a gun.
A knife sometimes, mostly in drunk - fights yes, but knives over a certain length, have now also been made illegal to carry around, unless you're on a hunting or fishing trip.
The police will randomly check people for knives, baseball-bats and what have we, and if anything is found, it will be confiscated, and you will be charged for carrying a weapon. Nobody needs a big knife, a baseballbat or a gun, when they go out for dinner.

The less weapons available, the less people get killed. That's really the bottom line.

 

[just play]

This is starting to seem like a "bash on USA" thread. We suck because we own guns, we have a "wild west" attitude, we like to kill, we are violent, etc...

When you (general poster in this thread) have over 300 million people in your country get back to me.

 

[skiny]

We have very stringent laws pertaining to handguns, but none for rifles, shot guns and I am assuming some of these assault rifles (someone from the US please correct or redirect here...THANKS!). I don't know how it works state by state for hunting licenses either. I do know in NY if you don't hunt every year, you have to take a hunter safety course. And any new hunter is required to take a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting permit.

Now, a co-worker and I were looking through the local Wal-mart ad the other day and you can BUY a semi-automatic similar to the type this person used in the school shootings. I don't know what the requirements are to purchase one, but I'm not about to go and find out either. I just find it interesting that Wal-Mart sells these in the sporting goods department...

Maybe a gun owner should have to take a safety renewal test like we do our driver licenses or whatever. The problem is, it won't stop the bad guys from obtaining guns illegally.

So, you take away the guns from the "good" (meaning homeowners, women, single parent, or insert relevant persona) guys and the bad guys still have theirs. Now the bad guy KNOWS the good guy is defenseless, it won't stop violent crimes from happening. But more than likely violent crimes will increase, because the bad guys now know there is NO threat from their intended victim(s).

And not to derail here, but you also need to look and see if there is drug use involved. Drugs and guns almost go hand in hand. Inner city gangbangers don't brawl or get into knife fights over territory. They "war" with guns over drug trafficking. Hardcore addicts will do ANYTHING to obtain money for their next fix.

So, find a way to stop the drugs and make guns less accessible for criminal use. Insure/guarantee the people their human rights won't ever be violated in a violent nature. Educate parents on how to tell when their "child" isn't " quite right" and ADMIT they need help , and get it for them before it's too late...

I find it strange that stores like Wal-Mart are allowed to sell anything other than hunting rifles.... and even those are iffy.

I agree that gun owners shouldn't just be allowed to take a simple test and then be forgotten about. Just because someone passed a psych test 5 years ago when a gun was purchased doesn't mean he or she would pass one now.

As for taking the guns just away from the home owners.... I do think that a large portion of the guns that criminals have came from home owners. It really would be the easiest place to get them. I realize that large amounts of guns are imported illegally and that might be something law enforcement needs to step up on but still, with millions of legally owned guns purchased within the US I would think that many of these would eventually end up in the wrong hands. If you want to cut off the supply of guns to criminals you have to cut it off from all sources.

I think the issue of mental illness is underrated. I think that people need to learn not to be scared or embarrassed that a family member might have issues that need attention. If a family member is acting strange or has a history of being slightly odd I think the responsible thing to do would be to make sure any weapons are far out of reach.

The picture shows truth.... not pretty, but relevant in my opinion. I do believe Jews owning guns would have a fighting chance than NOT having them! Common sense to me!

Giving a bunch of scared and unorganized civilians a gun to carry around wouldn't have stopped the 3rd Reich from rolling in with tanks and bombers and millions of well trained soldiers. What Hitler did is called an atrocity for a reason.

 

[LaHutti]

I haven't seen ANYTHING like that....maybe you're missing our point ?

This is starting to seem like a "bash on USA" thread. We suck because we own guns, we have a "wild west" attitude, we like to kill, we are violent, etc...

When you (general poster in this thread) have over 300 million people in your country get back to me.

 

[Cleveland]

Lets try to explain it this way:

I'm only using this as an example.

People in this thread (including myself) are trying to fight the symptoms of bigger problems. There are countless reasons why America has a high crime rate. The gangs in America didn't start because we loved our guns. And keep in mind the gangs are only one issue but to continue:

For example: Most of the original African American gangs were started with the purposes of better the community and some for protection. For one reason or another that mentally changed and the gangs grew out of control.

Another gang example: America has been literately flooded with gang members from other countries such as Mexico that make our gangs look like a church youth group. America as a whole ignored the problem and it has become out of control. If you watch a documentary on this you will see what I'm talking about.

What country other than America has the sheer amount of people flowing and fighting to get into it on a regular basis? What other country can lay claim to the sheer amount of gangs that we have? Houston Texas alone probably has more gangs than most small countries. You can't blame that on us loving our guns.

Look at the boarding States with Mexico. Working as a U.S. boarder patrol agent is one of the most dangerous law enforcement jobs. Mexico (just for example) has flooded our country with criminals. Gangs have spread like wild fire because our government chose to turn a blind eye. And I know there are currently some countries having similar growing concerns with for example extremist Muslim and gangs becoming a real problem. Our problems aren't simply because of guns. Guns are only a symptom of bigger issues.

@Nifty: I wish it was but its not as easy as saying get a security system and a lock.

 

[Cleveland]

I haven't seen ANYTHING like that....maybe you're missing our point ?

Actually I think y'all are. How many times have you or someone else called Americans "trigger happy." And I have yet to hear any solutions to fight what problems I have stated other than "get rid of your guns and get a security system." Which by the way a lot of people do have alarm systems.

Your statements as well as others towards America have been pretty degrading. To say its not like that is like me slapping someone and saying no no I like you.

Most in America don't want to kill anyone. Do I need to start linking to all the videos of officers being killed because a guy had a gun and the officers didn't want to shoot them. I recall one video where the guy was actually loading his gun and the officer kept yelling "put it down." Most of us don't want to kill anyone.

 

[Cleveland]

As with things like the economy and other politics its not that easy. If anyone in this thread can lower the crime rate in any country to whatever is an acceptable level while making citizens feel safe I'm sure there is a job for you at the top level of government. Great minds have and are working on these issues.

 

[Nifty29]

Lets try to explain it this way:

I'm only using this as an example.

People in this thread (including myself) are trying to fight the symptoms of bigger problems. There are countless reasons why America has a high crime rate. The gangs in America didn't start because we loved our guns. And keep in mind the gangs are only one issue but to continue:

For example: Most of the original African American gangs were started with the purposes of better the community and some for protection. For one reason or another that mentally changed and the gangs grew out of control.

Another gang example: America has been literately flooded with gang members from other countries such as Mexico that make our gangs look like a church youth group. America as a whole ignored the problem and it has become out of control. If you watch a documentary on this you will see what I'm talking about.

What country other than America has the sheer amount of people flowing and fighting to get into it on a regular basis? What other country can lay claim to the sheer amount of gangs that we have? Houston Texas alone probably has more gangs than most small countries. You can't blame that on us loving our guns.

Look at the boarding States with Mexico. Working as a U.S. boarder patrol agent is one of the most dangerous law enforcement jobs. Mexico (just for example) has flooded our country with criminals. Gangs have spread like wild fire because our government chose to turn a blind eye. And I know there are currently some countries having similar growing concerns with for example extremist Muslim and gangs becoming a real problem. Our problems aren't simply because of guns. Guns are only a symptom of bigger issues.

@Nifty: I wish it was but its not as easy as saying get a security system and a lock.

In that case, why is gun crime so high in the USA? I mean, if the things I mention have no effect, and guns have no effect as other US members are saying, then why isn't our gun crime stats proportional per head of population to the USA?

I don't see anybody bashing the USA, and particularly not any US members. What I see is people stating that the USA has a gun crime problem, which it does, and that every man and his dog owing a gun is contributing to that, which it is. I do see some US members being very defensive that anyone would dare to criticize their nation in any way...and if it was just about doing that, I would be deriding those responsible, but this is an open debate about the facts. It could be about Leichtenstein, or Upper Combukta West....the location is immaterial.

Just because it happens to be occurring in the USA, doesn't mean everyone from outside the USA with an opinion is "anti US". It's just silly.

P.S. I HAVE suggested a solution....or the start of one anyway.....a gun amnesty. Revoke all gun licences which are not for legitimate sport or security industries, and ban auto and semi-auto weapons. Nobody has tried that yet....I wonder why? So, I don't think it's fair to say we are all criticizing and not offering alternatives. After all, the current system ain't workin'.

 

[dionysus]

Actually I think y'all are. How many times have you or someone else called Americans "trigger happy." And I have yet to hear any solutions to fight what problems I have stated other than "get rid of your guns and get a security system." Which by the way a lot of people do have alarm systems.

Your statements as well as others towards America have been pretty degrading. To say its not like that is like me slapping someone and saying no no I like you.

Most in America don't want to kill anyone. Do I need to start linking to all the videos of officers being killed because a guy had a gun and the officers didn't want to shoot them. I recall one video where the guy was actually loading his gun and the officer kept yelling "put it down." Most of us don't want to kill anyone.

1. please don't paint everyone with the same brush
2. that would be silly; it would be like me posting links to where officers shot UNARMED men thinking they had a gun

 

[Cleveland]

I didn't say guns weren't apart of the problem, I said they aren't the root.

I still have yet to hear how you protect someone in these situations: Ex-husband / boyfriend breaks in. Rapist breaks in. Stalker breaks in. Violent Home Invasion (by definition - Breaking in to steal something and harming those inside just because they are inside - not because they are armed).

Please stop ignoring this:

Gangs - Harris County alone as of 2010 (county which includes Houston, TX) - Has a documented known either other words at least: 225 gangs. 10,000 members that are confirmed. That's one area in Texas.

So lets ban all guns right now. Ok done. Now please tell me how you deal with the above problems. As I said you are fighting a symptom by saying it's the guns. I'm not arguing that guns play a roll but still isn't the root cause.

 

[Cleveland]

1. please don't paint everyone with the same brush
2. that would be silly; it would be like me posting links to where officers shot UNARMED men thinking they had a gun

Funny I haven't seen you say this to someone who states Americans are trigger happy. Did I miss your post?

As for as your number 2 question goes and I will be blunt with this one: I'm not using officers being killed by someone with a gun as a reason to have guns. I'm using that as an extreme situation to show that the general population doesn't want to kill someone. Which is why the death penalty is such a huge debate in different States. I'm not seeing the point to your post other than to inflame or cloud the issues.

 

[Nifty29]

I didn't say guns weren't apart of the problem, I said they aren't the root.

I still have yet to hear how you protect someone in these situations: Ex-husband / boyfriend breaks in. Rapist breaks in. Stalker breaks in. Violent Home Invasion (by definition - Breaking in to steal something and harming those inside just because they are inside - not because they are armed).

Please stop ignoring this:

Gangs - Harris County alone as of 2010 (county which includes Houston, TX) - Has a documented known either other words at least: 225 gangs. 10,000 members that are confirmed.

So lets ban all guns right now. Ok done. Now please tell me how you deal with the above problems. As I said you are fighting a symptom by saying it's the guns. I'm not arguing that guns play a roll but still isn't the root cause.

It's the gangs that are the problem with gangs....not the guns. Gangs find a way to be violent regardless.

IMO there is a better way to handle gangs, much the same as we are going here with bikie gangs. Ban them. Make it an offence to part of or associated with a gang. Mandatory long sentences and other harsh punishments might start to convince budding gangsters that it isn't worth it.

I have to say, it does concern me that as a police officer you condone people taking the law into their own hands, rather than waiting for the police to arrive. I can understand implementing extra security and/or escaping the situation etc, but inferring that people should grab for their firearm at the first sign of trouble is.....well, part of the problem in your country IMO (not you...I mean grabbing for the firearm).

I also don't understand why you aren't supporting some of the suggestions made here to alleviate the gun problem. You say guns aren't the sole cause, just part of the problem, so what's wrong with dealing with that part of the problem first? Most problems rarely have one solution

 

[dionysus]

Funny I haven't seen you say this to someone who states Americans are trigger happy. Did I miss your post?

It isn't my obligation to defend you; if I had to be the guardian of everyone out there, it would be a full-time job. I'm responding to a comment directed at me, and yes, I'm a 'y'all'

 

[Cleveland]

I have to say, it does concern me that as a police officer you condone people taking the law into their own hands, rather than waiting for the police to arrive. I can understand implementing extra security and/or escaping the situation etc, but inferring that people should grab for their firearm at the first sign of trouble is.....well, part of the problem in your country IMO (not you...I mean grabbing for the firearm).

When did I say take the law into your own hands. People die in home invasions all the time and they don't have a gun and they don't provoke the attack and the ones breaking in were there to steal stuff. Google as I said violent home invasions houston tx.

Just the first page alone. Please explain how your suggestion to unarmed a homeowner protects those cases (the cases just on the first page of your search.) Which by the way as I said those homeowners didn't have a gun.

Someone breaking into your home and you grabbing a gun isn't taking the law into your own hands.

 

[Cleveland]

It isn't my obligation to defend you; if I had to be the guardian of everyone out there, it would be a full-time job. I'm responding to a comment directed at me, and yes, I'm a 'y'all'

I typed you a response but realized it would do you know good.

 

[dionysus]

of course not. what, I'm to scour threads defending everyone? You're a big boy. I'm not about to step between every slight between one and another and play mediator. should I go over the internet and defend americans there too? how about gays? blacks? near-sighted albinos? I've neither the obligation nor desire. if you feel slighted defend yourself

 

[Cleveland]

I also don't understand why you aren't supporting some of the suggestions made here to alleviate the gun problem. You say guns aren't the sole cause, just part of the problem, so what's wrong with dealing with that part of the problem first? Most problems rarely have one solution

What suggestions? The only one I've seen so far is "ban guns." I'm not saying others haven't been made but the thread is pretty long so feel free to point them out to me. Someone did mention their officers don't carry guns. I tell you what. If we ban all guns in America and then replace our officers with y'alls. I wonder how many would have to die before they start requesting permission to carry anytime during their watch.

Just for the record I've suggested many solutions that won't require a homeowner to not be able to protect their family: Any place where masses of people gather (schools, movies, malls, parks, etc) be required to have a viable amount of officers working during their business hours. Require metal detectors at points of entry (won't work for a park). Require stringent firearm laws - require yearly training updates and evals. Limit the number of guns a person can own. Harsh penalties for being found in possession of a firearm without a license. The list can go on and on.

 

[Cleveland]

of course not. what, I'm to scour threads defending everyone? You're a big boy. I'm not about to step between every slight between one and another and play mediator. should I go over the internet and defend americans there too? how about gays? blacks? near-sighted albinos? I've neither the obligation nor desire. if you feel slighted defend yourself

I could give a two flying ........... about you defending me, which judging by your words I highly doubt you would be able to. I've did my best to stay on track in this thread. Your comments have done little more than derail a very important thread. A person like that defend me? Please don't.

 

[dionysus]

Please, DO go back on track
Thank you