Harrison in 20 years?

[Spazz]

Well it must be nice to live in such a safe place where the very idea of having to defend yourself isnt a reality. I live out side of detroit harry lives outside of boston where do you live again ? Seriously dont you live in moose fuck canada somewhere? There are some rough neighborhoods in my part of the world how bout yours? My city is constantly coming up as one of the most unsafe places in the states to live in how bout yours? Being armed doesnt mean your looking to kill someone or star in your own version of die hard. It means that you realize that its a wild world out there and if you encounter one of the animals youd like to stay amongst the living.We could debate on the internet all day what it is about our cities that makes them such violent places to be but it wouldnt change that they are.

Now let me help you figure out self defense from murder

Man walks into his school and kills people. MURDER

Man wakes up in the night and someone is in his house and he shoots intruder. SELF DEFENSE

Man and his wife fire multiple shotgun shells at someone way off in the distance who poses no threat to them. MURDER

Man shoots another man after he pulls a knife on him in the 711 parking lot. SELF DEFENSE

Am Igetting through to you hoss ?

[Arlos]

Actually, you're wrong about #2. You can, and will, get into a ton of shit for killing someone in your house just for them being in there, if they haven't threatened you or anyone else in the house bodily harm in any way. Again, burglary and trespassing are *NOT* capital crimes. Yes, if he is threatening you and you are afraid for your life, you are entirely within your rights to blow his head off. If he is unarmed and just rooting through your silverware drawer in your dining room, however, you are NOT. You can threaten him, sure, and hold him under citizen's arrest while you wait for the cops to arrive, but without your life or the lives of your family being threatened, you do not qualify for "self defense".

And those asshats in Texas CERTAINLY didn't qualify for it, nor would they have even if those people *WERE* on their property. I repeat, it is that very attitude of "shoot 'em and let God sort 'em out" that you yourself are displaying with your post there that are largely at the source of the problem, not the guns themselves. If everyone had the mentality that guns were not supposed to be used EXCEPT if some criminal is threatening serious bodily harm, then there'd be no call for gun control. But, at least in the US, it seems everyone thinks they are John Wayne or Dirty Harry, and are prepared to unleash all guns blazing for the most trivial of reasons. THAT is the problem.

You argue that guns shouldn't be banned because responsible gun owners aren't a problem. Fine, I agree, responsible owners are NOT a problem. But what percentage of IRRESPONSIBLE owners that commit acts like this do we have to put up with? Call me cynical, but I tend to believe that the percentage of raving irresponsible morons out there is rather high, which is why there IS worry about the wide distribution of firearms among the population. Not because of the guns themselves, they're just objects, but because there are demonstrably many reasons to not trust in the inherent responsibility of most of our fellow citizens, and irresponsible morons + firearms = needless deaths. So, what do YOU think we should do about it? Or should we just ignore it and keep having 7 year old children killed as we shrug our shoulders?

-Arlos

[brinstar]

just to flick a nickel after arlos..

how do we know whether a gun owner is irresponsible? how do you screen for irresponsibility?

a murderer isn't a murderer until the murder actually happens, right?


i don't have answers for these questions, but i thought they should be asked

[Spazz]

We go round and round on this. Im telling you if its 3:30 in the morning and you hear crash in the night investigate and find a bad guy you dont have to wait for him to do shit before you pull the trigger and it might be the last thing you do if you do. If its in the middle of the night and some dudes in your house do you really want to take a chance heres just there to play xbox with you. How bout if your wife and kids are home is it still worth the risk to hope he will just leave. Someone who isnt your family in your house at night is clearly a threat ..... but I dont want to rehash that with you.

Carrying a weapon and being ready to defend yourself is not the same as thinking your dirty harry or wanting to get in a shoot out. Most weapon owners and those who carry normally do it without any incident at all yet we have to talk about guns like what these 2 stupid hillbillies did is the norm.

I take offense at this type of horse shit becuase regardless of what you think I am a responsible gun owner. I keep to myself stay out of shit and just happen to live near places like inkster and detroit where im aware of what could and might happen. Being willing to defend what you think is sacred ( life and family) does not make you a murderer. Pulling the trigger for no reason or just for kicks does.

[brinstar]

i'm not disagreeing with you man

all i'm wondering is how can we know whether someone buying a gun is responsible like you or irresponsible like the "stupid hillbillies" until something like this happens?

or to put it more directly: how can we prevent things like this from happening?

[Drem]

yeah that's all just logic tho spazz. arlos is talking about the law. there's a good chance if you drop an intruder that he (if he survived) or his family are gonna try to sue you. i dunno what the success rates of that type of bullshit are but i think it's pretty Fin ridiculous that that can happen at all

[Spazz]

Id say for how many guns that we have in our country ..... most of them prolly are.

[Spazz]

Its better to take the chance you might get some static than to risk yours or your families life. Let em sue and tell the truth. Bottom line is that if you dont want to get smoked dont break into peoples houses or assault them. I would rather my day in court than me day in the graveyard anytime and shame on you all for being so cowardly.

You people act like im advocating murder im just talking about keeping yourself alive if needs be and not risking yourself or your family.

[Spazz]

To brinstar I think this...

Id say for how many people we have in our country we do a pretty good job keeping this from happening. Now im going to speculate on what else we could do to end gun violence.


Teach kids in school about guns. How to handle them safely , check them if they are loaded and what can go wrong if you dont.

End the war on drugs completly. Take away crazy profit that is worth the risk and you take a big bite out of gang crime here and cartell activity elsewhere. Also drugs being legal we wouldnt have to take so many brothers and dads out of inner cities and after a generation that might start to make a diffrence if we also ...

Create middle class jobs in this country again. Desperate people are the ones who render desperate deeds. Give peoples some job security and something to look forward to and we might see a lot less despondancy

With how many people we have living here and the fact that for the most part we are free we will never be able to stop every lunatic who wants to act a fool. The world will never be a perfect place but I would bet anything I had that if we did the things I suggested we would see a major decrease in gun crime as well as violent crime in general.

[Gidan]

Man wakes up in the night and someone is in his house and he shoots intruder. SELF DEFENSE

This is going to end up being a decision made by a jury. The LAW states its murder, whether a jury will convict on it will depend completely on the circumstances, you can be sure however that you WILL be arrested unless it is 100% clear to the officers responding on the scene that you did so in self defense and even then you may still be arrested.

Teach kids in school about guns. How to handle them safely , check them if they are loaded and what can go wrong if you dont.

Until one of those screwed in the head kids gets his hands on one and blows away everyone in the class or an accident happens and someone gets hurt.

End the war on drugs completly. Take away crazy profit that is worth the risk and you take a big bite out of gang crime here and cartell activity elsewhere. Also drugs being legal we wouldnt have to take so many brothers and dads out of inner cities and after a generation that might start to make a diffrence if we also ...

Legalizing drugs isn't going to solve the problem, there will simply be something else to fight over while your legally off your rocker from the drugs your on.

Create middle class jobs in this country again. Desperate people are the ones who render desperate deeds. Give peoples some job security and something to look forward to and we might see a lot less despondancy

Really not sure which group your targeting in this, the people with the guns or the people who are breaking into homes to feed themselves and their families.

[Spazz]

Ok buddy what are your ideas on how we can decrease shooting deaths in this country.

Teach kids in school about guns. How to handle them safely , check them if they are loaded and what can go wrong if you dont.


Until one of those screwed in the head kids gets his hands on one and blows away everyone in the class or an accident happens and someone gets hurt.

Im not talking about handing out loaded guns in classrooms I was thinking more like just going over how they work and how to check and make sure its safe while still telling them not to pick it up and play with it .But still giving them a little basic knowledge just in case. I was thinking that would be more for targeting the little ones that find a gun and kill one of thier buddies.

End the war on drugs completly. Take away crazy profit that is worth the risk and you take a big bite out of gang crime here and cartell activity elsewhere. Also drugs being legal we wouldnt have to take so many brothers and dads out of inner cities and after a generation that might start to make a diffrence if we also ...


Legalizing drugs isn't going to solve the problem, there will simply be something else to fight over while your legally off your rocker from the drugs your on.

What are the gangsters going to fued over ? What do you suggest? Im not saying it would be perfect but you know damn well it would make a decrease in homicides a year.

Create middle class jobs in this country again. Desperate people are the ones who render desperate deeds. Give peoples some job security and something to look forward to and we might see a lot less despondancy


Really not sure which group your targeting in this, the people with the guns or the people who are breaking into homes to feed themselves and their families.

Im talking about neighborhoods where poverty and crime are both sky high. Im also talking about violence in this country as a whole and some of the things I think maybe we could do to curb it. Banning guns isnt realistic and no matter what people think its not going to happen. Banning assault weapons is a sham becuase those arent the guns used most often in crimes. Why dont you tell me what YOU think we could do to make our country less violent. DOnt give me any one line ban guns shit go ahead and think hard about it and keep it rooted in reality.

[Spazz]

P.s I wish minrott was here.

[brinstar]

would drug-related violence really go down if drugs were legal?

seems to me the motivation for a buyer to smoke a dealer and take his crops is based more on greed (or addiction) than whether said crops are legal or not

only way i could see this changing is if the gov't or some other easily-monitored entity could somehow take over the sale of drugs-- and more importantly, take away the ability for gangbangers to make a profit.

[Spazz]

Well when i said make them legal that is along the lines i was thinking.

[Gidan]

There really is no reason to teach our children firearm safety. If when they get older they want to learn or own a firearm, there are classes on how to do that and it should be a requirement for any person wishing to own a firearm in general. The fact that it might be necessary to teach this to our children screams that their is an issue with firearms. Any child who find and handles a firearm at home proves the owner shouldn't own it and is not responsible. If they should happen across one while not at home, they should be tought to immediately find an adult to deal with it and they shouldn't even touch it.

In regard to what gangs and such will fight over. There has been and always will be something to fight about. Actually legalizing drugs could have the exact opposite effect. You might see more deaths not less as more people will be using them because they will be completely legal. There is already a significant amount of violence that is alcohol related, why would you expect less from drugs which are just as if not more effective at altering your mental state. Your gangsters will still be pissed off and fighting, but they will have legal access to drugs rather then illegal.

Violence in this country as a whole is actually going down not up however the original discussion wasn't about national crime rates. It was about what is very likely a licensed gun owner blowing away a child for apparently no reason other then they thought the people might be doing something bad. This specifically does relate to a perceived threat not actually being a threat. You may disagree but I do beleive that limiting the people who can legally obtain firearms will lower the number of deaths by firearms. It is certainly not going to be a make or break reduction in overall firearm deaths in this country, however isn't it worth a little tighter restrictions to save the lives of innocent people? Are you going to tell me that forcing citizens to take a mandatory firearm safety class before being licensed to own a firearm is to high a price to pay to save a few lives? Is it to high a price to have all firearm transactions scrutinized to ensure proper regulations are followed is to high a price to save lives?

Responsible people who are willing to follow strict guidelines in regard to owning firearms will still be able to purchase and own them while those people who are not willing to do so will not. On a side note, I still just cant understand the need to own assault weapons in general whether they are being used to commit a crime or not. What exactly does one use an assault weapon for?

[Tikker]

The ironic part of this amusing derailment is that I've been put in the hospital by said "niglits" whereas I've never done anything to provoke or hurt them in turn..

karma's a bitch

[Tikker]

Man wakes up in the night and someone is in his house and he shoots intruder. SELF DEFENSE

Man and his wife fire multiple shotgun shells at someone way off in the distance who poses no threat to them. MURDER

I actually pretty much agree with this

I have zero issue with someone shooting the shit out of a home intruder. there's zero reason to be in someone else's home like that.

firing on someone just for being on your property is just fucked up though

[Spazz]

Multiple target shooting bowling pins Home defense ( i know you dont agree) Or even hunting of certain animals( hogs ak small game ar). But why bother to talk about assault rifles they arent the ones used in most murders.

Im iffy on the test before you can take it home becuase it is a right and who sets the test and how much does it cost do become issues. But i do think range time for gun owners is a good idea

I completely disagree with you about the drugs. I think a great deal of our homicides are gang related and that goes hand in hand with selling various narcotics. Make drugs availible to anyone who wants them through legal means and it will take profit out of the game. We would still have people get hot and do crazy things but i think the murder rate would go down.

I dont think its to an issue in this country to teach kids about gun safety but just like sex ed knowledge is power. Of course I dont think if they see a gun they should pick it up and play with it but im not foolish enough to beleive kids allways do the right thing. There are a lot of guns in this country and sooner or later accidents will happen no matter how careful.

[Gidan]

Its just like anything else you need to be licensed for. Some govt agency would set the test and any fee associated with the classes.

You will never take profit out of the game, this country has been built on capitalism, there will always be a way to make profit out of it.

I do have another question for the "self defense" crowd. How many of you who want a gun for self defense have actually received any training in personal self defense?

[Spazz]

Class to carry . Anyone in mi who carries has to pass the test. I beleive its thesame except in cali and ill where i dont think your allowed to carry and in vermont I believe if you can buy it you can carry it.

[Gidan]

This is a bit off topic but the conversation made me think about it.

I was more referring to hand to hand self defense in general. I know a few people I work with who own firearms here, 1 of which has a license to carry it concealed. I talked to them tonight and not one of them has ever actually had any training in personal combat. I was just wondering if any of the people here who own a firearm for self defense have taken any other steps to defend themselves or is the gun you one and only method. One of the reasons I ask is that just carrying a weapon of any kind gives people a sense of security and very often a false one at that. I gave a very brief demonstration to the individual who carries his weapon with him on how easy it would be to disarm him. He was dumbfounded at how easily he was just killed with the very firearm that he carries to protect himself. And yes for anyone who cares, I do know how to use a firearm, I just choose not to own them.

For any person who owns a firearm for self defense (or really anyone in general), especially those who actually carry one, I STRONGLY recomend that you take some personal combat training of some sort. Not only will you be able to better read a situation and be able to avoid it (that is the goal right, avoid a situation that requires the use of the firearm). Most people have no idea how very easy it is to disarm someone and to then turn that weapon back on the owner.

Public Service Announcement over.

[Lueyen]

You may disagree but I do beleive that limiting the people who can legally obtain firearms will lower the number of deaths by firearms.

That is probably the core of the difference between those who lean toward more gun control and those who don't. The question is Gidan, why do you believe this?

[Arlos]

I'll answer my opinion there, Lueyen:

Because I believe that the preponderance of people in this country would make irresponsible owners. As I said, call me cynical, but I believe the percentage of the population that are, at best, slack-jawed idiots is disturbingly high.

Since it is the irresponsible idiots who get people killed unnecessarily....

If you could ensure that everyone legally obtaining a firearm would be a responsible owner, who would keep the gun with a trigger lock if there's kids around, wouldn't display the kind of "shoot first, ask questions of the corpse" mentality those inbred texas fucknuts had, would only use the gun for safe recreational shooting, hunting and/or self defense... Well, then no one would be talking about restricting them.

The problem is, that's not reality. That's really at the core of my suggestion to require passing a safety exam before being allowed to take guns home. It would mean that people who are irresponsible can't have their guns where they can harm other people *OR* would have provably shown they at least know HOW to be responsible, so if they choose NOT to be, they can be dealt with far more harshly by the law when they do act like a fuckup. Responsible owners could easily pass the test, and would not be inhibited in any way by such a rule.

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. I simply don't trust "everyone else" when it is my safety or potentially my (obviously hypothetical) child's safety that is at risk. And since my life or any kid's I had life would most certainly BE put at risk if we have an irresponsible gun owner as a next door neighbor, and throw in the fact that I, as I said before, lived through a situation where my then less than 2-year old little brother came within seconds of being killed by an irresponsible gun owner, and well...

-Arlos

[ClakarEQ]

A couple blurbs from me.

I don't think it's been proven that decriminalizing, legalization, regulation "narcotics" increases use. In fact I thought the very opposite had been proven. Whether or not this would effect gun crimes I do not know, however it would follow logic. I think it is pretty clear that a lot of killings, gangbangers, etc seem to kill over the control and profits of drugs. I don't think it would do much for those one off type killers like V Tech, etc.

Someone that enters your house and you then kill, you've just committed murder, whether or not it is justified will not be a decision of yours, but of the police and/or jury. Spazz, I don't think it was that long ago an incident like this happened in our state. I just recall some snip on the news but again this was few years back. I thought there was another one or maybe it was the same incident where the person won the "murder rap" but then got sued and lost in civil court. I could very well be mistaken but I thought that is how it was played out.

Firearm safety in our child educational system would be a bad idea IMO. The anti-NRA folks would freak over something like this. I could also see many parents, NRA members included, that would not want this type of environment. Perhaps if it was something available to enroll in from school but the activity is away from school (ala after school field trip sort of thing) it would probably be a lot more palatable.

I did see something like what Gidan mentioned and was frankly shocked at how fast some of these gun owners got disarmed and this was while they were already holding the weapon in their hand, pointed at the 'bad guy". I would have to think the folks with these skills are very limited though so the odds of a robber having this skill seems unlikely. At the same time, I'd bet your question would be answered with zero (i.e. how many self defense gun owners have taken a self defense course).

Lue I assume that Gid believes that because it follows a form of logic. At the same time, and again an assumption I'm making, why do you think reducing the number of firearms won't reduce firearm deaths?

[Gypsiyee]

limiting the amount of people who can legally obtain them obviously requires that a more precise process and analysis goes into those who are allowed to obtain them. this results in less guns being in circulation, and therefore less guns that can be illegally obtained.

also, assuming a main contributing factor for illegal possession is a direct result of those obtaining them legally irresponsibly circulating them to those who are not screened, you greatly reduce the amount of people who abuse the right.

restricting legal possession = more in depth screening process = less circulation = less irresponsibility = fewer incidents. pretty simple logic, really.