Just Thought We Needed Another Heated Discussion

[Onyx]

Homicidal Heathen's post about who owns weapons got me thinking about guns and all the controversy around having one in your home and gun ownership.

I hate the feeling of hearing a noise at night and knowing that I have no weapons, and that I would have to wait for police to show up to get any help. Just for me personally, I want a shotgun in my house.

This fellow wrote a book, more guns, less crime - interview here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

but the statistics seem to be unclear, depending on who is adding things up. Most of the articles I can find seem to be written by pro-gun folk. This one says states that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't. (but then again, Detroit has plenty of guns, but plenty of crime too).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

What do you think (and do you personally own a gun)?

[phee]

Homicidal Heathen's post about who owns weapons got me thinking about guns and all the controversy around having one in your home and gun ownership.

I hate the feeling of hearing a noise at night and knowing that I have no weapons, and that I would have to wait for police to show up to get any help. Just for me personally, I want a shotgun in my house.

This fellow wrote a book, more guns, less crime - interview here: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

but the statistics seem to be unclear, depending on who is adding things up. Most of the articles I can find seem to be written by pro-gun folk. This one says states that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't. (but then again, Detroit has plenty of guns, but plenty of crime too).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

What do you think (and do you personally own a gun)?

I don't even need to bother stating my opinion again... but simply put the guns aren't the problem... they just make it a fuck of a lot easier for one person to kill another... and the fact that so many people want to kill one another is the problem

More guns = more people getting shot

[Onyx]

I don't even need to bother stating my opinion again... but simply put the guns aren't the problem... they just make it a fuck of a lot easier for one person to kill another... and the fact that so many people want to kill one another is the problem

More guns = more people getting shot

but, what if you were a woman living alone? Wouldn't you want some way to defend your home available to you?

Having a gun and making it easier for me to kill someone who is breaking into my house seems like a good thing to me.

I've never been a victim of a violent crime, but when I was younger I was at home alone when a man tried to break in our house. I made noise and flipped on the outside light and the man ran away. I will never forget that feeling though, being there alone with no way to defend myself and wondering if the police would make it there before he got inside.

[phee]

but, what if you were a woman living alone? Wouldn't you want some way to defend your home available to you?

Having a gun and making it easier for me to kill someone who is breaking into my house seems like a good thing to me.

I've never been a victim of a violent crime, but when I was younger I was at home alone when a man tried to break in our house. I made noise and flipped on the outside light and the man ran away. I will never forget that feeling though, being there alone with no way to defend myself and wondering if the police would make it there before he got inside.

True... but what if they break in when you are not there.... and they get your gun.... then there is another gun in the wrong hands... and they kill someone with your gun....

[BrassFusion]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

[phee]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

Good question!

[Onyx]

True... but what if they break in when you are not there.... and they get your gun.... then there is another gun in the wrong hands... and they kill someone with your gun....

Yes, that is definitely a concern.

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

Yes, why is that?

I would love to have something like that (but the down side is that you have to get in pretty close). I'm sure someone could devise something more practical with a bit longer range.

I would really rather not kill someone if I could stop them another way.

[Head Wreck]

i belive that education and proper controll is the key. i dont belive in outright ban, that just pushes weapons into black markets as the firearms banns have shown in britan.

this may really upset some folk here. but do you need full auto? british militry dogma says full auto is only used as a "room broom" when you know theres no possibility of a friendly being hit. i'm not saying a ban on such items but a little more restriction on them.

from my POV, limited as it is here in cozy britan where nothing really happens here. i have and see no need for a firearm of any calibre or action aside from agricultural pest controll and historic reinactment (in which case these could perhaps be converted with an internal BFA to the barrel

[torn asunder]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

why? because if you don't kill them (intruders) they'll sue your ass off for anything they can come up with! seriously, i've read articles about home invaders suing for injury incurred *while illegally in the home*!!

[BrassFusion]

why? because if you don't kill them (intruders) they'll sue your ass off for anything they can come up with! seriously, i've read articles about home invaders suing for injury incurred *while illegally in the home*!!

so those are two problems that can be addressed concurrently

[Head Wreck]

simple. stun the intruder.

then take an axe to thier knees. they'll need to walk to the lawyers office to sue right :D

[n0Mad]

True... but what if they break in when you are not there.... and they get your gun.... then there is another gun in the wrong hands... and they kill someone with your gun....

Which is why you either A) Carry it with you when you leave the house if you have a CCW that permits you to do it legally, or 2) Use a gun safe. Most burgleries are smash and grab and they won't bother trying to crack a safe that only a pro could get open. Gun owners are legally liable to secure their weapon from unauthorized access.

why? because if you don't kill them (intruders) they'll sue your ass off for anything they can come up with! seriously, i've read articles about home invaders suing for injury incurred *while illegally in the home*!!

Which is exactly why Michigan adopted the Castle Doctrine Law. So that can't happen.

[know_buddy_kares]

the thing is, i can see the possible positive and negative outcomes to both pro or anti gun actions if taken.

If we go pro guns, yes more people may have them, and this also increases the chance that they're used more often. And I'm actually for this, not for the reasons to use on one another hell no. But I do think it might also be possible to keep the hot heads at check, as the idea that it's very possible that their target may have a gun too, could prevent them from even making an attempt. The difference between a "hard target" and a "soft target" that is. If someone targets you, regardless of who or where, being more alert and packing some heat would most likely discourage them. I may cover more of this in a later post but I wish to address if we abolished the right to bear arms..

Criminals would still get the guns regardless, we wouldn't have a means of defending ourselves unless the fools are dumb enough to be within reach of us and we know what we're doing.. which most don't. Yet on the other hand, It could stop alot of domestic injuries and deaths, ie families fighting and letting emotions get out of control enough to do such actions, or an accident out of ignorance such as a kid playing with it.

I could write more however I hate writing long essays. Classic examples..

pro gun countries, look at them, there is alot of fighting going on, such as many middle eastern nations

then look at England, best to my knowledge they're not allowed guns at all, and I couldn't find any statistics but If i'm right i think gunrelated violence is very low.

But then you could also look at the cultures, and well... take a way an internal warring nation's guns.. would they stop fighting? Hand every brittish person a gun.. would they go savage? Hard to tell in my opinion. But personally, if there's a situation with guns involved, I'd feel alot more comfortable having one myself.

[BrassFusion]

well put. now go to sleep, you're thinking too hard

[Scary Guy]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

Because we redneck hillbillys likes us our guns. I wouldn't mind a nonlethal option as long as they don't take away the lethal one.

Also http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288

[Onyx]

Which is why you either A) Carry it with you when you leave the house if you have a CCW that permits you to do it legally, or 2) Use a gun safe. Most burgleries are smash and grab and they won't bother trying to crack a safe that only a pro could get open. Gun owners are legally liable to secure their weapon from unauthorized access.

Which is exactly why Michigan adopted the Castle Doctrine Law. So that can't happen.

Has the castle doctrine law been put to the test in the courts yet? I like the sound of it anyway. If someone is breaking into my house I don't feel they should have the right to sue me for whatever happens to them inside.

Because we redneck hillbillys likes us our guns. I wouldn't mind a nonlethal option as long as they don't take away the lethal one.

Also http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288

That's pretty interesting that the crime rate dropped when everyone was required to have a gun, and increased in the places where they were banned. Hmm.

[Vater Araignee]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

We don't need them.

Well more to the fact "We can have Less lethal weapons" I like to call them High Capacity Fully Automatic Electric Airsoft Guns.

3 joules of impact force repeating 12 times a second will incapacitate any one especially when going for the eyes.

The reason we cant have the others is because you would be even more likely to hospitalize somebody with mace ( because they pissed you off ) then you would be

Which is exactly why Michigan adopted the Castle Doctrine Law. So that can't happen.

Castle Doctrine is why I opt for my EAG rather than my 45.

I am an evil bastard that would rather blind than kill.

Just think about the torture somebody will go through having to think about the dumb shit they did that got them that way. Though I haven done it... yet, the thought fills the pebble I call my heart with glee.

It is also a bonus for the simple fact that it will make others think twice IMNSHO, I know I'd rather be dead than blind.

[Vater Araignee]

i still don't understand why we can't have high-tech stun guns for self-defense. why does it have to be lethal or nothing

We don't need them.

Well more to the fact "We can have Less lethal weapons" I like to call them High Capacity Fully Automatic Electric Airsoft Guns.

3 joules of impact force repeating 12 times a second will incapacitate any one especially when going for the eyes.

The reason we cant have the others is because you would be even more likely to hospitalize somebody with mace ( because they pissed you off ) then you would be

Which is exactly why Michigan adopted the Castle Doctrine Law. So that can't happen.

Castle Doctrine is why I opt for my EAG rather than my 45.

I am an evil bastard that would rather blind than kill.

Just think about the torture somebody will go through having to think about the dumb shit they did that got them that way. Though I haven't done it... yet, the thought fills the pebble I call my heart with glee.

It is also a bonus for the simple fact that it will make others think twice IMNSHO, I know I'd rather be dead than blind.

[Scary Guy]

Castle Doctrine is why I opt for my EAG rather than my 45.

I am an evil bastard that would rather blind than kill.

Just think about the torture somebody will go through having to think about the dumb shit they did that got them that way. Though I haven't done it... yet, the thought fills the pebble I call my heart with glee.

It is also a bonus for the simple fact that it will make others think twice IMNSHO, I know I'd rather be dead than blind.

I'd take blind over dead, at least I still exist.

Also I like the way you think. But to me either way works. Just if you blind them then it's just a probable drain on the taxpayers for disability.

[Vater Araignee]

I'd take blind over dead, at least I still exist.

Also I like the way you think. But to me either way works. Just if you blind them then it's just a probable drain on the taxpayers for disability.

Well think of it like this.

If the offender is a first or second time looser then this will prevent future court and imprisonment costs, a disability stipend is cheaper than imprisonment.

If the offender becomes a three time looser then they are a lifer anyway.

[Scary Guy]

Well think of it like this.

If the offender is a first or second time looser then this will prevent future court and imprisonment costs, a disability stipend is cheaper than imprisonment.

If the offender becomes a three time looser then they are a lifer anyway.

But it's not a choice between blind for life and in jail for life. It's a choice between blind for life and no life at all period. If they're dead they can't be put in jail anyhow, but I'm pretty sure you could lock up a blind man if you wanted to.