Supreme Court Landmark Decision

[roosterjuicer]

Supreme Court rules in favor of gun ownership rights - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)


This case is HUGE. Probably the most important supreme court decision in our lifetimes so far.

Let the eurotrash begin their bashing:D

[henk4]

God kills America...

[blackcat77]

Great ruling. For too long, we've made laws out of fear of the bad guys rather than respect for not only the good guys, but also the constitution which defines our freedom. The alternative was to move to a belief that the police are primarily responsible for our safety rather than ourselves.

We still need to aggressively prosecute those who use guns in a criminal manner, but we have finally stopped treating guns as if they were criminal in and of themselves.

(Edit to add that if you think this is a bad idea, look at it this way -- I'm no buddy of Bush by any means, and the Supreme Court he's given us has systematically been tearing down our freedom and handing power over to the executive branch over the legislative, and has granted the government in general more and more power over our lives, including allowing the government unfettered spying on the lives of Americans and, up until very recently, even the denial of the most basic right of all -- habea corpus, which prevents Washington from just "disappearing" people they don't like. This ruling AFFIRMS a fundamental constitutional right and, hopefully, secures it from those who seek to make people weaker rather than stronger.)

[092326001]

guns dont kill people
americans kill people

[Kooper]

Reminds me of that song in Team America: World Police called "America, F*** yeah" :D

EDIT: Probably have to add I think it's a good ruling.

[SlickHolden]

Hasn't anyone ever herd the saying life changes?.

I was watching some new and seen how a man killed 2 guys that were next door robbing his mates house..
Now the cop on the switch board told him repeatability to not go outside, Well long story short he went out and shot them in the back dead.
He claims he was in fear of his property and family.. And laws state he can have guns etc.
But my question is, Who's right is it too shot someone unarmed in the back when you are not directly in danger or someone else life in danger?.

A man's house is his castle, But his Neighbours is also it seems?.
If this man isnt found atleat gultiy on manslaughter what does this show?, That's it's fine to shoot anyone that is 100 meters near you if they make you nerves.. And are personal goods that can be replaced worth taking someones life over?.

If someone was trying too kill me make no mistake aobut it i would kill them. But i woudlnt walk up behind soemone stick a gun in there back and shoot them because they stole some DVD's or cash from my house.. Mor ethen likley grab a bat and smack them down, Wait for the cops. Not worth taking a life or putting yuorself in real danger for something that can be replaced easy enough, Life can't be replaced goods can be.


America is rulled by guns, Everyone has one and everyone that doesnt have one needs one, And there the probelm is, Not everyone is capble and responsible enough to have a weapon let alone a swiss army knife.
And also that weapon that you thnik protects you might be turned on you.

But can i ad something, There is no such thing as Freedom!. It's a mith!.

[Dino Scuderia]

It's a mith!.

So is spell check.

[SlickHolden]

So is spell check.
Well clap clap for the handy capped.

[Kitdy]

Guns are constitutional, I dunno how the case got so far.

I am all for personal freedoms and things but I am not sure that people should for example be allowed to have certain weapons - taking it to the extreme, I would say it should be illegal for a person to own say a bomb or make a bomb as it is dangerous to the public. I think guns may or may not fall into this category.

I would say many gun related deaths are not from licensed. firearm owners, but a recent issue that has been brought up in Toronto is that many gun related deaths spawn form stolen registered guns.

The fact of the matter remains that the Constitution was written in a different era with different goals by people with different values and now people hold it enshrined like holy scripture. To keep in mind how it is not exactly pertinent to today, let's keep in mind this fabulous document also provided for slavery and distinctly outlined black people as being worth 3/5ths of a vote for their slave owner. That is entirely useful in contemporary society, just like militias are.

My point is, it has been changed before, it can be changed again - the provision of firearms for a militia and people having guns today upholds the letter of the law, but breaches the spirit of the words written by the drafters, and I think that is readily apparent for anyone that isn't a complete moron. The guns in America are not being used for a militia, and furthermore, a militia in today's society is not at all necessary as it was back then. The second amendment is an anachronism and should at least be reworded if anything.

Something to also consider is if the current gun ownership laws re in contravention of the second amendment. Aren't the necessity to pas background checks to qualify for gun ownership essentially an infringement on a person's right to bear arms? I can hardly see people wanting gun stores to hand guns over to people with criminal records, with certain mental disorders, or a variety of other reasons, but doesn't the law provide for anybody to own a gun? Isn't this plain and simple madness in modern society?

In the wide majority of cases, do guns actually provide safety or just give a you a reason to shoot an intruder on your land that likely means no harm to you and only wants top steal your property?

All important things to ponder.

[digitalcraft]

Well thank American Jesus for that. You know what gun bans have done to Europe.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v111/robbeck/sarcasm_meter.jpg

[Matra et Alpine]

Well thank god for that. You know what gun bans have done to Europe.
Please, do tell us what FOX News said it has done to Europe :)

[70cuda88]

Please, do tell us what FOX News said it has done to Europe :)

America just got pwned. ill give it to you

[Fleet 500]

America is rulled by guns,.

Not quite. For a large number of Americans, guns have no part of their life.


Everyone has one

Again, not true. Many Americans don't own guns.


and everyone that doesnt have one needs one,

Why? Crime rates? In many cities in the U.S., the crime rate is lower than the average crime rate in England.


And there the probelm is, Not everyone is capble and responsible enough to have a weapon let alone a swiss army knife.

The wise ones learn how to handle the weapon they own. (There are classes for that.)


also that weapon that you thnik protects you might be turned on you.

Quite often, it has saved the owners life or prevented a crime.

[Kitdy]

Quite often, it has saved the owners life or prevented a crime.

I highly doubt this. Someone robs your house, you wake up grab a gun and kill them. It is highly uncommon for a thief to break into your house and kill you unless you confront them, and a gun should not be used to stop a crime unless it is a police officer's gun and the crime is life threatening.

[Fleet 500]

I highly doubt this. Someone robs your house, you wake up grab a gun and kill them. It is highly uncommon for a thief to break into your house and kill you unless you confront them, and a gun should not be used to stop a crime unless it is a police officer's gun and the crime is life threatening.
What do you suggest? Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you? Then you can defend yourself?
I own a rifle and if someone breaks down my door or is climbing in the window, intent on robbing me (or worse) I will not hesitate to use my gun. As the saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

And the police? Lol. "Just wait there, Mr. criminal, until the police come and pick you up!"

[baddabang]

Good I like my guns. All 12 of them.

[Kitdy]

What do you suggest? Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you? Then you can defend yourself?
I own a rifle and if someone breaks down my door or is climbing in the window, intent on robbing me (or worse) I will not hesitate to use my gun. As the saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

And the police? Lol. "Just wait there, Mr. criminal, until the police come and pick you up!"

I would say they are probably not under the influence of a drug and they would probably break in at night and they probably don't want to harm you unless you interfere with them, and even in this case may flee instead of starting a confrontation. If you are so intent on self defense, buy a shotting taser - it is about as effective and nowhere near as lethal, and get a home security system.

Whatever we can say about guns is that the world is definitely a better place with them and the more people that own guns the less people that will die because of gun violence. This is entirely logical.

Also consider, where did the thief get their gun? Was it stolen from a gun collector or licensed gun owner like many illegal guns are?

So where do you keep your rifle? I hope under lock and key.

What is your plan if an armed robber breaks into your house? Wake up from your bed, go but of your room and attempt to get the gun while risking contact with the thief to arm yourself (the thief surely will let you go get the gun and not consider firing at you at this point, and once you appear with the gun he surely will not consider shotting back at you).

Or just stay in your bedroom where the thief will probably not even enter as they know this will result in confrontation and complications? If they are looking to steal your valuables, there are plenty of things that are easily accessible in other parts of your house, and as many thiefs are learning, maybe the beset thing to steal is your car keys as this yields the highest return.

So if anyone does break into your home, I suggest you stay located in your room, or if you really feel it necessary to arm yourself, consider a taser, or a handgun in your room under lock and key and if you do arm yourself, DO NOT leave the room and only fire if someone enters your room with the intent of harming you.

[Fleet 500]

I would say they are probably not under the influence of a drug and they would probably break in at night and they probably don't want to harm you unless you interfere with them, and even in this case may flee instead of starting a confrontation. If you are so intent on self defense, buy a shotting taser - it is about as effective and nowhere near as lethal, and get a home security system.

Many criminals are under the influence of a drug. That is why they rob people- to pay for their drug addiction.


Whatever we can say about guns is that the world is definitely a better place with them and the more people that own guns the less people that will die because of gun violence. This is entirely logical.

? The more people that own guns the less people will die?


Also consider, where did the thief get their gun? Was it stolen from a gun collector or licensed gun owner like many illegal guns are?

A lot of them buy (or steal) them from other criminals.


So where do you keep your rifle? I hope under lock and key.

Of course not. I don't keep it under lock and key because there are no children in my house.


What is your plan if an armed robber breaks into your house? Wake up from your bed, go but of your room and attempt to get the gun while risking contact with the thief to arm yourself (the thief surely will let you go get the gun and not consider firing at you at this point, and once you appear with the gun he surely will not consider shotting back at you).

Or just stay in your bedroom where the thief will probably not even enter as they know this will result in confrontation and complications? If they are looking to steal your valuables, there are plenty of things that are easily accessible in other parts of your house, and as many thiefs are learning, maybe the beset thing to steal is your car keys as this yields the highest return.

So if anyone does break into your home, I suggest you stay located in your room, or if you really feel it necessary to arm yourself, consider a taser, or a handgun in your room under lock and key and if you do arm yourself, DO NOT leave the room and only fire if someone enters your room with the intent of harming you

I keep my rifle in my bedroom. I keep the clip in the bedroom, too, but in a different location. And I already know what to do in the case of a house break-in.

[Kitdy]

The bit about more people owning guns was sarcasm.

I am not too sure many criminals are high when they actually are in the process of robbing.

Why not consider a taser either?

As for the guns bought or stolen form other criminals, how many of those guns at some point in their existance were purchased legally?

[The_Canuck]

There's a lesson to be learned here, Americans are the most paranoid people in the world.

[Kitdy]

There's a lesson to be learned here, Americans are the most paranoid people in the world.

I need to arm myself on the extremely unlikely possibility that a home invader comes into my house with the intention of killing me.

Fleet do you have a security system?

If you really fear for your safety, a high quality two way voice security system is probably a really good deterrent - a thief would probably not even bother with a security system installed house when they could just as easily rob a house without one.

Maybe more gun-happy people should consider security systems before arming themselves.

[scottie300z]

I highly doubt this. Someone robs your house, you wake up grab a gun and kill them. It is highly uncommon for a thief to break into your house and kill you unless you confront them, and a gun should not be used to stop a crime unless it is a police officer's gun and the crime is life threatening.

I don't really think it matters the other person's intentions, I don't care to guess or play the odds. If someone breaks into a house w/o knowing the people are gone or home, they know they are taking a large risk and if you want to play the odds, at that point they are most likely prepared to hurt someone. Not that you'd know either way.

Fact of the matter is, people just shouldn't break into other people's homes. I could care less if they get shot doing it even if they only intended to steal and not hurt. Criminals will get guns if they really want them, even if outlawed, so I'm fine with people having them.

[ScionDriver]

Everyone here should watch the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t in which the 2nd Amendment is discussed. Link to part 1 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wGPd2UPv7k) (Though the vid wasn't loading for me so if that doesn't work try to find it yourself)

Basically, you can pass all the gun control laws you want but there is something that is forgotten: CRAZY PEOPLE DO CRAZY THINGS and cannot be stopped. If a bad person wants a gun, he'll find a way to do it. There are illegal arms dealers and black market gun runners and all that. If a bad person wants a gun bad enough, he'll get it. There is no way around it.

To that effect, everyone should be issued a gun with training but not required to carry at all times for the sole purpose of a level playing field. If there was a 100% that any homeowner has a gun and will shoot, I bet break-ins don't occur quite as much (obviously unless no one was home). If there was a 50/50 chance that any person walking down the street had a gun I bet rapes and muggings would decrease.

Also the government should fear its people. That is what the framers had in mind, they had just got done fighting a war with a tyrannical gov't and wanted to make sure that if it had to happen again it could. The people have guns so if the government gets out of line we can fight back.

I don't own a gun and I don't plan to and I have only shot a gun a couple times in my life. But there are bad people in the world and I don't think gun control is the answer. You can harp on all you want about how great Europe is and how in Japan cops don't even have guns but guess what? I dont care! There are already guns here and its too late to get rid of them. Regulate? Yes. Ban? No, its unrealistic now.

EDIT: Also, if someone breaks into your house, depending where you live, criminals have sued homeowners (and won) for injuries suffered when the homeowner shot the intruder, its probably better to shot to injure or pull the gun and threaten until the real cops show up.

[The_Canuck]

Americans ignore facts and go straight to theory.

"If there was a 50/50 chance that any person walking down the street had a gun I bet rapes and muggings would decrease."

Maybe, but how many more shootings do you think there'd be if every other person had a gun?

[Blue Supra]

I like where this thread is going...

also BOLD make you sound smarter :)

[scottie300z]

Americans ignore facts and go straight to theory.

"If there was a 50/50 chance that any person walking down the street had a gun I bet rapes and muggings would decrease."

Maybe, but how many more shootings do you think there'd be if every other person had a gun?

Well, what your suggesting is a theory itself, so...

But to answer your question, if someone was going to shoot someone in that situation what are the chances they would then get shot?
Although, I agree they would most likely go up mainly due to road rage incidences.

But most people don't own guns. The vast majority of Americans will never touch one. More Americans do illegal drugs than own guns. (Sure that's just through my observation but it isn't even close so I'd chance that's true nationwide.) It's not that we are paranoid as has been suggested but that we want our criminals to be paranoid. To me it seems the people here who are so strongly against them are paranoid about guns in general.

[Fleet 500]

There's a lesson to be learned here, Americans are the most paranoid people in the world.
Far from it. We just want to keep the right to defend ourselves.

[kingofthering]

Many criminals are under the influence of a drug. That is why they rob people- to pay for their drug addiction.

....Or you have something they want? Nah, couldn't happen.

As glad as I am that we can now own guns, I still believe we need some form of gun control. I'd rather have a small band of enthusiasts who know how to properly handle a 9mm than a bunch of adrenaline driven 25-year olds buy .50 cal and shoot them "gangsta-style."

[MRR]

I need to arm myself on the extremely unlikely possibility that a home invader comes into my house with the intention of killing me.

Fleet do you have a security system?

If you really fear for your safety, a high quality two way voice security system is probably a really good deterrent - a thief would probably not even bother with a security system installed house when they could just as easily rob a house without one.

Maybe more gun-happy people should consider security systems before arming themselves.

Seeing as our house has broken into twice it could well happen. Its about flippin time the Supreme Court put the anti-gun in their place. Why should law abiding citizens be punished for what criminals with unregistered black market weapons do? Maybe the court would do well to save the rest of our fading civil liberties before the neocons declare marshall law

[clutch-monkey]

i am for gun ownership
but i do lol at yanks with semi-auto assault rifle copies with 30 round clips in case "someone breaks into my house" or "gotsta keep tha guvvermints in check!!111!1"
if you can't hit an intruder with 7 shots, what makes oyu think you can hit them with 30?

[Fleet 500]

....Or you have something they want? Nah, couldn't happen..

That, too.


As glad as I am that we can now own guns, I still believe we need some form of gun control. I'd rather have a small band of enthusiasts who know how to properly handle a 9mm than a bunch of adrenaline driven 25-year olds buy .50 cal and shoot them "gangsta-style.

"Gun control," in general, doesn't work, though.

[kingofthering]

"Gun control," in general, doesn't work, though.

Fine, just impose gun education. As I said, it's better to have people who know how to handle small-arms rather than lots of people who buy heavy firepower for the cool factor.

[Fleet 500]

Fine, just impose gun education. As I said, it's better to have people who know how to handle small-arms rather than lots of people who buy heavy firepower for the cool factor.
I agree... gun owners should know how to use them. (I have fired my rifle at an indoor shooting range.)

I mean gun control, as in trying to ban them in certain instances, doesn't work. Because criminals don't obey the laws.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Sigh....I'm not for guns, I think that if no one had them, it'd be safer.

but since the reality of the situation is as such, you can't stop people from having them, but Like clutch said, if you're going to keep some crazy semi-automatic thing in your closet next to your porn collection and your blow up doll, the only damage you'll be doing to an intruder is plasterboard cuts from the surrounding walls.

There is a WHOLE lot to go wrong with guns, but if you educate the public properly....They're still pretty Dangerous. like cars.

The difference, I suppose, is that guns are designed to harm.

[Kitdy]

Why hasn't anyone addressed my suggestion of tasers?

That is the perfect solution to self defense in my eyes - non lethal, effective, and usually safe.

But guns are cooler.

Maybe people should start carrying guns on the street so that when people try to mug them they can defend themselves by shooting the criminal as well.

Penalties on illegal gun ownership should also be draconian.

Let's say you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you get 10 years. You use that gun in a crime, you get 15 more. Penalties are often not a good deterrent as many studies have proven, but at least it will keep re-offenders off the streets. People running the gun cartels should be getting like 25-30 years in prison for example.

I am all for massively increased penalties for violent crimes and crimes in general coupled with decrease in jail privileges.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Tasers, at least canadian ones, have been linked to what, 4, 5 deaths in the past year alone.

How is that a Non-Lethal solution?

[2ndclasscitizen]

I own a rifle and if someone breaks down my door or is climbing in the window, intent on robbing me (or worse) I will not hesitate to use my gun. As the saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

So basically you shoot first, ask questions later? Bravo.

[scottie300z]

Why hasn't anyone addressed my suggestion of tasers?

That is the perfect solution to self defense in my eyes - non lethal, effective, and usually safe.

But guns are cooler.

Maybe people should start carrying guns on the street so that when people try to mug them they can defend themselves by shooting the criminal as well.

Penalties on illegal gun ownership should also be draconian.

Let's say you are in possession of an illegal firearm, you get 10 years. You use that gun in a crime, you get 15 more. Penalties are often not a good deterrent as many studies have proven, but at least it will keep re-offenders off the streets. People running the gun cartels should be getting like 25-30 years in prison for example.

I am all for massively increased penalties for violent crimes and crimes in general coupled with decrease in jail privileges.

I'm with you on coming down hard on criminals. But it seems w/ overcrowded prisons and the cost on society the gov. doesn't share that view. I'm appalled at how light the punishment often is for molesters and rapists for example. So gun punishments would be even lighter.

[ScionDriver]

I'm with you on coming down hard on criminals. But it seems w/ overcrowded prisons and the cost on society the gov. doesn't share that view. I'm appalled at how light the punishment often is for molesters and rapists for example. So gun punishments would be even lighter.
I'm with you and Kitdy, however the overcrowded prisons stem a lot from poor drug legislation due to hurried laws. Those laws have the mandatory minimum sentences for sometime even very minor drug charges. Although thats a whole other issue. But if you could only get the real hard time (10-15 years) for drug traffickers and then also for the worst gun offenders it would help a lot I think too.


Maybe, but how many more shootings do you think there'd be if every other person had a gun? I agree with you too Canuck, I don't necessairly think that should be the case (The everyone have a gun thing) It was an idea from the Penn and Teller thing I alluded to but again if all those people who abused the guns got harsh sentences then they might not abuse the system, or fear that if they gun someone down then someone would gun them down, which aside from a lot of gun fights would probably decrease an over populated country ;)

[Kitdy]

Tasers, at least canadian ones, have been linked to what, 4, 5 deaths in the past year alone.

How is that a Non-Lethal solution?

Better than a gun at least - I was considering not saying non-lethal.

[The_Canuck]

The Coalition for Gun Control has the most recent statistics for Gun
rate Death available.

Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000

Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47

Do it. Say that these stats are inaccurate, or just ignore them. You know you want to.

[clutch-monkey]

Do it. Say that these stats are inaccurate, or just ignore them. You know you want to.
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94

not bad, but New Zealand has semi-auto's still, so that shits in the face of the politicians lol.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Better than a gun at least - I was considering not saying non-lethal.

But thats just it - they're not.

And Gun Crime, In Canada at least, seems pretty comparable death wise.

[clutch-monkey]

Canada has more guns per person than the US i thought?

[The_Canuck]

Tasers are a stupid idea Kitdy, seriously. Can you imagine the idiocy associated with a non lethal weapon...?

[Kitdy]

Tasers are a stupid idea Kitdy, seriously. Can you imagine the idiocy associated with a non lethal weapon...?

I think it is a better idea than guns.

[The_Canuck]

I think it is a better idea than guns.

Yeah, but bows and arrows are a better idea than guns too...because at least they're more inaccurate.

[kingofthering]

Well, what your suggesting is a theory itself, so...

But to answer your question, if someone was going to shoot someone in that situation what are the chances they would then get shot?
Although, I agree they would most likely go up mainly due to road rage incidences.



It's interesting you say that. We recently had a senseless triple-murder where a father and his two sons were shot to death in cold blood because the other guy (gangster) felt he didn't back up far enough for his turn. The suspect was caught today.

[Fleet 500]

So basically you shoot first, ask questions later? Bravo.
If my life was threatened... someone who broke into house is pointing a gun at me... definitely.

It would be better than waiting for the criminal to do something and be shot dead.

[Rockefella]

Americans ignore facts and go straight to theory.

"If there was a 50/50 chance that any person walking down the street had a gun I bet rapes and muggings would decrease."

Maybe, but how many more shootings do you think there'd be if every other person had a gun?

And all Canadians shield the sun from our eyes because your country is our hat.

Oh, and I have two guns.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolr/guys-beach-body-biceps-400a050307.jpg

[Wouter Melissen]

America must be very safe country, with all citizens able to defend themselves. Low crime rates, etc.

[Fleet 500]

Actually, statistics have shown that the more legal guns there are in a state, the less crime there is.
More Guns = Less Crime (http://www.junkscience.com/news2/moreguns.htm)

"States which have the largest increase in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crime."

[Kitdy]

Actually, statistics have shown that the more legal guns there are in a state, the less crime there is.
More Guns = Less Crime (http://www.junkscience.com/news2/moreguns.htm)

"States which have the largest increase in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crime."

There are a multitude of possible other reasons for this - I don't think your average criminal considers them getting shot when they enter a home as deterrent.

Fact of the matter is, America has some of the highest gun death ratios in the world.

Do you really think more guns on the streets will decrease gun deaths? The more people that have guns, the more likely they are to use them.

[Wouter Melissen]

Do you really think more guns on the streets will decrease gun deaths?

Eventually it will, that will also help keep the gas prices down.

[Fleet 500]

There are a multitude of possible other reasons for this - I don't think your average criminal considers them getting shot when they enter a home as deterrent.

Fact of the matter is, America has some of the highest gun death ratios in the world.

Do you really think more guns on the streets will decrease gun deaths? The more people that have guns, the more likely they are to use them.
It happens in too many instances for it to always be "other" reasons.

And it is not true with law-abiding gun owners. I own one and I haven't used it except a few times at at target range.

[Fleet 500]

Fact of the matter is, America has some of the highest gun death ratios in the world.

But that is not the fault of the gun.

[Wouter Melissen]

But that is not the fault of the gun.

Whose fault is it then?

[Kitdy]

Whose fault is it then?

Liberals and the anti-gun lobby.

[clutch-monkey]

Liberals and the anti-gun lobby.
goddamn liberals!
to be fair, the anti-gun lobby in america has some Grade A morons, from a few articles i've read.
how is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you call for the banning of the ~120 year old .30-30 cartidge because it apparently has 'armour piercing capabilities' (LOL)

[henk4]

goddamn liberals!
to be fair, the anti-gun lobby in america has some Grade A morons, from a few articles i've read.
how is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you call for the banning of the ~120 year old .30-30 cartidge because it apparently has 'armour piercing capabilities' (LOL)

Those are not the guns that kill 13.47 (out of 100000) americans each year...(compared to just over half a Dutchman)

[clutch-monkey]

Those are not the guns that kill 13.47 (out of 100000) americans each year...(compared to just over half a Dutchman)
that's exactly what i mean
if you're going to want to make any progress with sensible gun legislation, you have to make sense (can't beat the NRA at their own game, see):D

[henk4]

that's exactly what i mean
if you're going to want to make any progress with sensible gun legislation, you have to make sense (can't beat the NRA at their own game, see):D

problem is if you leave those guns out of the equation the trigger happy free citizens will use them too if they are being denied their Magnums or Kalashnikovs...

[Kitdy]

Another thing that must be considered is the gun culture of the US.

Isn't it entirely possible that criminals use guns more than in many other Western nations because of the culture of guns and gun ownership that is apparent in American culture?

Just something to ponder...

[clutch-monkey]

problem is if you leave those guns out of the equation the trigger happy free citizens will use them too if they are being denied their Magnums or Kalashnikovs...
ah but then where do you stop, is the question (or what is possible). restricting kalashnikovs is more than reasonable but then the nanny state "think of the children" crowd will be badgering any form of projectile tool

Another thing that must be considered is the gun culture of the US.

Isn't it entirely possible that criminals use guns more than in many other Western nations because of the culture of guns and gun ownership that is apparent in American culture?

Just something to ponder...
that is true, it is very different between countries. also, buying a gun appears to be almost effortless in the US, any dipshit can rock up and buy one without any previous experience.

[drakkie]

When it's easily available, it will be easier used. Simple.

[Wouter Melissen]

When it's easily available, it will be easier used. Simple.

Simple it may be, it is also wrong.

[The_Canuck]

Isn't it entirely possible that criminals use guns more than in many other Western nations because of the culture of guns and gun ownership that is apparent in American culture?



Exactly, and thats why Americans will always have guns, and will always kill more Americans.

Americans, live in a constant state of fear (hilariously enough caused by the government they're keeping in check), so they feel the need to protect themselves, i can't think of any other reason for the amount of shootings in that country.

Standing up for your rights has nothing to do with it because theres many other 'free' countries that have heavy regulations on guns.

[Jack_Bauer]

What do you suggest? Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you? Then you can defend yourself?
I own a rifle and if someone breaks down my door or is climbing in the window, intent on robbing me (or worse) I will not hesitate to use my gun. As the saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

And the police? Lol. "Just wait there, Mr. criminal, until the police come and pick you up!"

Fleet, are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?

[roosterjuicer]

Im pretty sure canada has a higher gun per person ratio than the US but canada has less gun deaths and i think its for a variety of reasons.

Try to look at it on several different levels. America is a much bigger country than a lot of the ones on that list, so there are a lot more factors working into it. For example Nebraska has a very high gun per person ratio and our entire state has less gun related deaths than DC (where untill yesterday handguns were all but outlawed). In south dakota it is much easier to get a handgun than in nebraska yet they have an even lower crime rate than ours. Im not saying that having more guns lowers crime (but im also not saying having less guns lowers it either) im just saying that a lot of it is the people's fault not the gun's fault and I shouldn't be punished for what some retard in the city does with guns.

A lot of those countries listed aren't much bigger than a lot of our states I'm sure if you compared the gun related death rates of a lot of those countries with some of our states that have pretty relaxed gun laws you would find them to be pretty similar. Likewise, if you compared them to the states that have more stringent gun laws (illinois, california, new york, washington DC, ect...) you would find the rate to be much higher. Reason being the people in certain parts of those states are A-holes. To be honest, if you just took an 12 square block radius of omaha out of Nebraska our crime rate would be almost non-existant. Im not saying that taking major portions of any population is a good way to study things, im just saying it helps explain things.

This is difficult to say, and its totally inccorect but unfortunately you have to accept facts even if you dont like them. And most of the countries on the list compared to America dont have even close to our numbers of Blacks (or African Americans for the PC crowd) or people South/Central American descent. And unfortunately the numbers show that if you are Black or South American you are much much much much more likely to be involved in a gun related crime than a White person is. Likewise, if you are Jewish or Asian you are less likely to be in a gun related crime than a white person is. So once again, if you made our black/south/central American population closer to European levels, you'd find that our gun related deaths are much closer to your levels too. It sucks, but thats the way it is.

On a final note, someone earlier mentioned that tasers are better than guns. First of all...id hate to be the guy who brings a taser to a gun fight haha :^). But also, when you are in a situation where someone is attacking you or trying to attack you, its a lot harder to aim and stuff than it is in Call Of Duty. A taser is 1 shot (at very limited range) and they are not very easy to reload quickly. Which is why I taught my fiance how to properly and safely operate my revolver whenever im gone rather than a taser because i would never count on a taser to keep my loved ones safe and neither should you. Not that she needs it out here but she's originally from California and as a wise man once said, "Its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"

[digitalcraft]

I see the gun deaths rate, but is there a murders rate per country?

[henk4]

I see the gun deaths rate, but is there a murders rate per country?

we do all our killing manually, we are real men.

[Fleet 500]

Exactly, and thats why Americans will always have guns, and will always kill more Americans.

Americans, live in a constant state of fear (hilariously enough caused by the government they're keeping in check), so they feel the need to protect themselves, i can't think of any other reason for the amount of shootings in that country.

Standing up for your rights has nothing to do with it because theres many other 'free' countries that have heavy regulations on guns.
Strange, I don't live in a constant state of fear. Maybe I should start. :D

I've gone on bike rides at 12:30 AM in my area and for walks at 1:00 AM and even later. Many stores and restaurants are open until 12:00 AM or later. It doesn't look like people who are out at those hours are living in a contant state of fear.

[Fleet 500]

Fleet, are you a Christian?

I am a Protestant.


Do you believe in God?

Yes, but what does that have to do with guns? Atheists are allowed to own guns, too.

[Fleet 500]

we do all our killing manually, we are real men.
Really? With your bare hands? You guys must be pretty strong. ;)

[Fleet 500]

Whose fault is it then?
The owner of the gun, of course. Every gun owner is responsible for their actions. Whether they have a gun in their home, or for hunting or for self defense, they are the ones responsible, not the gun itself.

[Viper007]

Fleet, are you a Christian? Do you believe in God?

I too am interested in the relevance of this statement to the thread. (Note: I am not instigating anything, but after reading the thread it came out of nowhere for me.)

[Jack_Bauer]

I am a Protestant.

Yes, but what does that have to do with guns? Atheists are allowed to own guns, too.


I too am interested in the relevance of this statement to the thread. (Note: I am not instigating anything, but after reading the thread it came out of nowhere for me.)

My question was in response to Fleet stating that he would not hesitate in shooting someone who came into his house. I presumed he was a good Christian, but thought I would just double check first.

I asked the question because I wondered whereabouts Fleet having no qualms whatsoever about gunning a man down in cold blood sat with his belief in God, and the teachings of the Bible. I'm no religious scholar, but last time I checked I think God and the big J.C. didn't look too kindly upon killing people. I wonder how taking the life of another man, one who in all likelihood has no intention of hurting anyone, would sit with his good Christian conscience.

I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in eternal damnation for your sins, but even I couldn't imagine living with another man's avoidable death on my hands.

Just curious as to Fleet's thoughts on the matter.

[Rockefella]

I've made mile+ walks home from parties/friend's houses in the middle of the night (1 A.M. - 4 A.M.) in dimly lit streets. I don't carry a knife/gun/weapons because I don't live in a state of fear. No one I know/friends don't have any guns, and neither do their parents.

A lot of those statistics are dependant on regions where crime is at absurd rates. Rooster pointed this out in a post somewhere above mine, but you guys live in countries where the inner-city crime rates are low, or at least lower than some of the hot spots in the U.S.A. Show me your country's version of Detroit, Michigan and I'll show you St. Louis. Show me that St. Louis and then I'll show you Washington D.C. There are 10+ cities I can name easily off the top of my head where gun deaths happen usually to gang/drug/criminal related offenses. In areas like these, the gun death rate could be as high as 100/10,000 while in rural southern areas it may be 0.3/10,000. I don't think my town has seen a murder for the past 70 years or something (20,000 people I believe in my town).

What it comes down to I think is that America is a very weird place. Our country is huge and extremely diverse. The gap between the wealthy and poor is rather large too, and often clash in some of the larger cities. Sometimes the easiest/only way to make a buck for the 'scum' of the cities is through criminal activity, and often.. that ends in a bullet to the chest. Do I think it sucks that it's like this? Yeah, definitely. Can stuff be done to stop it, I don't know.. but maybe it can be reduced. Not sure if this new decision will hurt/benefit the current state of affairs, but I'm not too discouraged by it.

On a side note: The doors to my house are unlocked at night and my dad's car is usually left unlocked out in the street with the keys in the cup-holder.

[scottie300z]

My question was in response to Fleet stating that he would not hesitate in shooting someone who came into his house. I presumed he was a good Christian, but thought I would just double check first.

I asked the question because I wondered whereabouts Fleet having no qualms whatsoever about gunning a man down in cold blood sat with his belief in God, and the teachings of the Bible. I'm no religious scholar, but last time I checked I think God and the big J.C. didn't look too kindly upon killing people. I wonder how taking the life of another man, one who in all likelihood has no intention of hurting anyone, would sit with his good Christian conscience.

I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in eternal damnation for your sins, but even I couldn't imagine living with another man's avoidable death on my hands.

Just curious as to Fleet's thoughts on the matter.

You can shoot someone w/o killing them. Although that isn't guaranteed.

I'd like to know what Christian wouldn't sacrifice his chances of getting into heaven for protecting his family.

[Fleet 500]

My question was in response to Fleet stating that he would not hesitate in shooting someone who came into his house. I presumed he was a good Christian, but thought I would just double check first.

I asked the question because I wondered whereabouts Fleet having no qualms whatsoever about gunning a man down in cold blood sat with his belief in God, and the teachings of the Bible. I'm no religious scholar, but last time I checked I think God and the big J.C. didn't look too kindly upon killing people. I wonder how taking the life of another man, one who in all likelihood has no intention of hurting anyone, would sit with his good Christian conscience.

I'm not a Christian, and I don't believe in eternal damnation for your sins, but even I couldn't imagine living with another man's avoidable death on my hands.

Just curious as to Fleet's thoughts on the matter.
Defending yourself is not "gunning someone down in cold blood."
Would it be any better if the criminal gunned me down in cold blood?

God and the big J.C. also don't look too kindly in getting killed!

[SlickHolden]

Not quite. For a large number of Americans, guns have no part of their life.
Come on it's the minority that can't hold a glass that don't have them.


Again, not true. Many Americans don't own guns.
Majority has it over the minority, If I'm not mistaken there would be more then 1 gun for every person in the country?.


Why? Crime rates? In many cities in the U.S., the crime rate is lower than the average crime rate in England.
Is that killed by gun? Because we know that killing by a weapon is larger in the U.S then maybe all county's in the developed world put together.


The wise ones learn how to handle the weapon they own. (There are classes for that.)
I don't see what that has too do with it?..
20 year vetren in the polcie force can have there gun disarmed and used on them with ease.



Quite often, it has saved the owners life or prevented a crime.
Not often enough, And because "almost" Everyone has one it causes more issues then if there was only 1-5% of the nation with them.
Everyone thinks a gun is needed for protection..
Here this year a single man stopped 5 men from rapping 2 women.. He had no weapon!.

I highly doubt this. Someone robs your house, you wake up grab a gun and kill them. It is highly uncommon for a thief to break into your house and kill you unless you confront them, and a gun should not be used to stop a crime unless it is a police officer's gun and the crime is life threatening.
Totally agree!..
It should be Last resort only not first thought to take a life..


Why not consider a taser either?
Too easy:D.
[/quote]



If a bad person wants a gun bad enough, he'll get it. There is no way around it.

Could that be because they are available like Candy from the local shops?.


Tasers, at least canadian ones, have been linked to what, 4, 5 deaths in the past year alone.

How is that a Non-Lethal solution?
That's because they keep zapping them for fun.. I seen some 6 U.S men zap a chick for a good 15 seconds, Like 6 men couldn't take down one little lady in custody.



As for walking the streets after 12am:p..
I have been walking before at all ours of the AM. Haven't crossed paths with a single person, Smart people are at home sleeping..
It's more dangerous getting hit by a car then getting shot here.

[clutch-monkey]

Majority has it over the minority, If I'm not mistaken there would be more then 1 gun for every person in the country?.

that's the same in a lot of coutnries though. only because that stat doesn't work.
for example, 1 in 4 houses in australia has a firearm, statistically.
realitically that's not the case for obvious reasons..

Not often enough, And because "almost" Everyone has one it causes more issues then if there was only 1-5% of the nation with them.
Everyone thinks a gun is needed for protection..
this is true. the amount of times where a gun has been used by it's owner to stop a crime or whatever is so miniscule it basically in validates that as a reason for americans to own one..

[scottie300z]

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)
Interesting story.

On another issue, it has been quite the trend for about the last 5 years or so to point out the how stupid certain individuals within the American population are as far as their knowledge and perceptions of the world. For me, this thread signals a change to the trend. Am I saying it will end, no not at all, even with guns legal you can't kill stupid. But maybe we should look at the perceptions the world has about America that are wrong and stupid. Stupidity can cross oceans, after all, that's how it got here in the first place.

Do most Americans own guns? No. Yet repeatedly people here have said otherwise. People who have no way of experiencing America and its gun culture or haven't quoted any evidence. Last I read about a quarter of the American population owned a gun. That was about 10 years ago, but is there a reason for that to double? Even after 9/11 it is highly unlikely that number doubled. So maybe people should keep their assumptions in check before it shows a little ignorance. I'm really not trying to insult people but earlier someone mentioned not jumping to theory or ignoring facts. Yet that whole side of the argument is just that.

So just to elbow the Australians in the ribs a bit, your now basing beliefs of the world on blind assumptions and have also gained the title of heaviest nation. (or highest percent obese. whatever it was) So I have 1 question, what is it like living in New America?

[clutch-monkey]

Do most Americans own guns? No.
is it easier for americans to own guns, with no qualifications or prior experience?
yes.
does america have the most school shootings and massacres?
yes. ;)
is this a direct result of comparatively high gun proliferation, media, or culture? who knows.

On another issue, it has been quite the trend for about the last 5 years or so to point out the how stupid certain individuals within the American population are as far as their knowledge and perceptions of the world. For me, this thread signals a change to the trend. Am I saying it will end, no not at all, even with guns legal you can't kill stupid. But maybe we should look at the perceptions the world has about America that are wrong and stupid. Stupidity can cross oceans, after all, that's how it got here in the first place.
no idea what this has to do with the thread, but America is simply in the media the most, and does have a massive amount of gun related deaths compared to any other nation...how relevant that statistic is, is debatable.

So just to elbow the Australians in the ribs a bit, your now basing beliefs of the world on blind assumptions and have also gained the title of heaviest nation. (or highest percent obese. whatever it was) So I have 1 question, what is it like living in New America?
already been covered :) aging population and BMI index resulted in that verdict... but obesity is common to all western nations anyway, so it's hardly the defining characteristic of america.
edit: haha sorry, america is still no. 1 dependant on which survey you look at.
Obesity Statistics: Number of Obese Americans Increasing (http://www.americansportsdata.com/obesitystats.asp)
American Obesity Association - AOA Fact Sheets (http://obesity1.tempdomainname.com/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml)

[3yearsharehold]

Aussies no 1

Obesity epidemic: We are the world's fattest | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23893557-421,00.html)

[kingofthering]

When it's easily available, it will be easier used. Simple.

...Explains a lot...

[roosterjuicer]

Majority has it over the minority, If I'm not mistaken there would be more then 1 gun for every person in the country?.


Im not sure if i understood your statement properly. but you gotta realize that while there are more americans that dont own guns than do own guns, a majority of people that own A gun, own several guns which throws off the statistics.

to be honest, i dont know a single person who has only 1 gun.

[clutch-monkey]

Im not sure if i understood your statement properly. but you gotta realize that while there are more americans that dont own guns than do own guns, a majority of people that own A gun, own several guns which throws off the statistics.

to be honest, i dont know a single person who has only 1 gun.
yeah, thats what i was saying. when they did the survey to find that 1 in 4 houses have a firearm, it doesn't work since they just took the number of guns and divided it by number of households.
i have something like 8 guns (yes i don't know exactly; two friends who don't have safes are storing theirs in mine), so that throws off the stats for my entire street lol.

[Fleet 500]

Come on it's the minority that can't hold a glass that don't have them.

It's also the minority who commit crimes with guns. Most legal owners of guns do not commit crimes with them.


Majority has it over the minority, If I'm not mistaken there would be more then 1 gun for every person in the country?.

I don't know what the statistics are, but I do know that banning guns in a U.S. city doesn't make it more safe.



Is that killed by gun? Because we know that killing by a weapon is larger in the U.S then maybe all county's in the developed world put together.

No. I said crimes, not just murders.



I don't see what that has too do with it?..
20 year vetren in the polcie force can have there gun disarmed and used on them with ease.

Come on... how often does that happen? It is usually just the opposite. an off-duty officer using his gun to prevent a crime in a liquor store or gas station.


Not often enough, And because "almost" Everyone has one it causes more issues then if there was only 1-5% of the nation with them.

It happens very often.


Everyone thinks a gun is needed for protection..
Here this year a single man stopped 5 men from rapping 2 women.. He had no weapon!

And if one of those 5 men had a gun, he would have been shot.


Totally agree!..
It should be Last resort only not first thought to take a life..

But it should be an option. We in the U.S. have the right to own a weapon and to defend ourselves.


If a bad person wants a gun bad enough, he'll get it. There is no way around it.

Could that be because they are available like Candy from the local shops?[/QUOTE]

The problem isn't guns... it is criminals who use guns for the crimes they commit.

[Viper007]

On a side note: The doors to my house are unlocked at night and my dad's car is usually left unlocked out in the street with the keys in the cup-holder.

I assume you probably live in a safe part of town, but aren't you even the least bit afraid of theft? Is it common practice to do these things throughout the neighborhood?

[Cyco]

And if one of those 5 men had a gun, he would have been shot.

Thank you Fleet for proving why gun control works - because of it none of the 5 had a gun and he wasn't shot.

[Fleet 500]

Thank you Fleet for proving why gun control works - because of it none of the 5 had a gun and he wasn't shot.
What about the criminals who do have a gun?
How does gun control "work" if only the criminals have guns?

[SlickHolden]

that's the same in a lot of coutnries though. only because that stat doesn't work.
for example, 1 in 4 houses in australia has a firearm, statistically.
realitically that's not the case for obvious reasons..
10 guns per house?:D. Acorind to some of the blokes on here who have all types just incase they might need to bunker down:p.


this is true. the amount of times where a gun has been used by it's owner to stop a crime or whatever is so miniscule it basically in validates that as a reason for americans to own one..
They would give real gun owners who use them for sport a bad name.
They need guns because someone else might have one thats becase they do because you do and they know it so they need one, You need one, We all need one because someone might have one so lets instead of giving out birth cirtificuts when born hand them a gun liceance insetad:rolleyes:..

I was a kid who loved guns, I shot them and won some money of the old guys that came around thinking they could be me in shooting a can off the gate.
They were wrong i was a crack shot, Something I'm not proud of but i shot a bird @ 30 meters away with a slug gun, Them things were shit how the **** could that happen, I had too go over and see it with my own eyes to bleive it..
But shit guns cocking them all the time makes the wood breake and your skin gets stuck in it and it hurts like shit.

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)
Interesting story.
Does it count iof they are shot them beat too death?.


On another issue, it has been quite the trend for about the last 5 years or so to point out the how stupid certain individuals within the American population are as far as their knowledge and perceptions of the world. For me, this thread signals a change to the trend. Am I saying it will end, no not at all, even with guns legal you can't kill stupid. But maybe we should look at the perceptions the world has about America that are wrong and stupid. Stupidity can cross oceans, after all, that's how it got here in the first place.
Is this another one of them poor Americans being picked on?.


Do most Americans own guns? No. Yet repeatedly people here have said otherwise. People who have no way of experiencing America and its gun culture or haven't quoted any evidence. Last I read about a quarter of the American population owned a gun. That was about 10 years ago, but is there a reason for that to double? Even after 9/11 it is highly unlikely that number doubled. So maybe people should keep their assumptions in check before it shows a little ignorance. I'm really not trying to insult people but earlier someone mentioned not jumping to theory or ignoring facts. Yet that whole side of the argument is just that.
Perhaps then Americans should stop mentioning the fact there are enough weapon's for every man women and child in the country.


So just to elbow the Australians in the ribs a bit, your now basing beliefs of the world on blind assumptions and have also gained the title of heaviest nation. (or highest percent obese. whatever it was) So I have 1 question, what is it like living in New America?
If it's an opinion it's not wrong.

What does it feel like living in new America? I'll tell you when i buy a gun because my neighbours might have one and they make me uncomfortable about it, So i might pop next door for some soup and bring some led for them too chew on:rolleyes:

But going on the U.S history of mentality, When a man broke into my mothers car 7 years ago one night, I have the right too walk outside and pop a cap in his head!..
That's wrong he took nothing we don't leave things things in the car, But by law i can do this correct? I'm deffending my house proerty family and myself..

But this is serious, More likely statistically to be shot visiting the U.S then getting shot at home. No joke the numbers stack up.

[SlickHolden]

Im not sure if i understood your statement properly. but you gotta realize that while there are more americans that dont own guns than do own guns, a majority of people that own A gun, own several guns which throws off the statistics.

to be honest, i dont know a single person who has only 1 gun.
According to many on here there are states with guns, As this is there claim to death free?.
I own something and i don't have too tell you so you wouldn't know i have it get what i mean.
I'm not saying you have one, But there are a huge amount of illegal and legal guns racing the streets and homes in the states.


I do Clutch does.

[SlickHolden]

It's also the minority who commit crimes with guns. Most legal owners of guns do not commit crimes with them.
True, But it's like saying your poor your scum so you must commit crimes.




I don't know what the statistics are, but I do know that banning guns in a U.S. city doesn't make it more safe.
It's gone to far now to ban, That's my biggest issue on this, Noone because of this and that ever considered doing it.. We did it, And it's debatable if it's been a great success just worked or doesn't, Deepends who you talk too. But killing is killing, And gun killings are down.
Your more then likely be stuck by a knife or hit with a bat here then be shot, I'll take my cahces vs a bat or knife:D.





No. I said crimes, not just murders.
Crimes with a gun?.





Come on... how often does that happen? It is usually just the opposite. an off-duty officer using his gun to prevent a crime in a liquor store or gas station.
Happens more then it should..
The guy robbing the station has got a gun, And the guy over the counter has one the cop runs in he might spray them all how would he know guns waving everywhere..



And if one of those 5 men had a gun, he would have been shot.
And thats why if one didnt have a gun noone would have been shot.


But it should be an option. We in the U.S. have the right to own a weapon and to defend ourselves.
Bewcaue someone attacking you might have a gun because they are easy to get?.
Why is it first resort and not last?.



Could that be because they are available like Candy from the local shops?
Are they?. Then you got problems:D.


The problem isn't guns... it is criminals who use guns for the crimes they commit
No the problem is guns, Because everyone thinks they need one.
Why not issue weapons and give the cops the year off, Clearly cops are not needed to enforce the law or serves and protect if residents can do this themselves.

[SlickHolden]

On a side note: The doors to my house are unlocked at night and my dad's car is usually left unlocked out in the street with the keys in the cup-holder.
I went to the footy one night, 65,000 people left my phone in the holder in the car it's in eye shot walking past.. Noone touched it..
We went out one day in a hurry early, Never came home until 4am we left the house open:eek:.
Now mind you it's not something i like too do i don't trust anyone you cant these days.

[scottie300z]

Is this another one of them poor Americans being picked on?.


My point was to correlate the Americans you make fun of w/ yourself. But apparently it went over your head.



Perhaps then Americans should stop mentioning the fact there are enough weapon's for every man women and child in the country.

That doesn't mean most Americans have guns. So what's your point? That you can jump to conclusions?


If it's an opinion it's not wrong.

Except for when it's stated as fact. Such as "most Americans have guns." If you don't truly know the culture or have no way of knowing the culture well enough to make those statements maybe you just shouldn't. So while someone's opinion maybe that Americans live in fear, they aren't really basing that on anything concrete and join the group of Americans who think all people w/ brown skin = terrorist.



But going on the U.S history of mentality, When a man broke into my mothers car 7 years ago one night, I have the right too walk outside and pop a cap in his head!..
That's wrong he took nothing we don't leave things things in the car, But by law i can do this correct? I'm deffending my house proerty family and myself..

See, this is where our differences in views come from. You are truly concerned about the well being of the criminal while most people in America just don't care. It may be a culture difference, I don't know. But myself and a lot of people I know just don't think he should be doing that and if he was doing what he was supposed to then he wouldn't have to worry about someone protecting their property.

[nota]

So just to elbow the Australians in the ribs a bit, your now basing beliefs of the world on blind assumptions and have also gained the title of heaviest nation. (or highest percent obese. whatever it was) So I have 1 question, what is it like living in New America?
It has its benefits :)

We lead world's second-longest lives, says health report | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23918426-601,00.html)

[henk4]

It has its benefits :)

We lead world's second-longest lives, says health report | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23918426-601,00.html)

the cause-effect relationship may take some time do its work...

[nota]

Do most Americans own guns? No. Yet repeatedly people here have said otherwise. People who have no way of experiencing America and its gun culture or haven't quoted any evidence. Last I read about a quarter of the American population owned a gun. That was about 10 years ago, but is there a reason for that to double? Even after 9/11 it is highly unlikely that number doubled.
Does this 25% figure include ALL Americans, ie children too? :confused:

By this I mean would the average family of four (2 adults & 2 kids) typically own two guns per household? :eek:

[nota]

the cause-effect relationship may take some time do its work...
Envious/concerned coz you were born circa 1910?

[henk4]

Envious/concerned coz you were born circa 1910?yep I am already well over the average end-age of the Australian...

[nota]

yep I am already well over the average end-age of the Australian...
If you've passed us I guess your only hope now Henk4 is to Turn Japanese (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpCcelpvkps)

[Rockefella]

I assume you probably live in a safe part of town, but aren't you even the least bit afraid of theft? Is it common practice to do these things throughout the neighborhood?

My dad has an '83 Mercedes Diesel, so it's not too hot of a car to steal. He's just too lazy to put his keys away and unlock the doors and stuff because the door panel is screwed up. It was stolen once when some kids down the block had a party and one of them drove it to the corner, parked it, and then left. Never found out who that was though.

My area isn't necessarily safe, but it isn't dangerous either.

[Sledgehammer]

But going on the U.S history of mentality, When a man broke into my mothers car 7 years ago one night, I have the right too walk outside and pop a cap in his head!..
That's wrong he took nothing we don't leave things things in the car, But by law i can do this correct? I'm deffending my house proerty family and myself..



No that is not correct. You cannot just go up to someone who breaks into your mothers car and shoot him/her. If you would then you would most certainly be facing manslaughter charges. However, if while making contact, him/her attack's you, you have a few choices under the law you can make.

1. Probably the best choice is to run. An offender committing auto or grand theft is not likely interested in you, or any property on your person.

2. Fight back, this decision should be made based on both the subject and yourself. Be aware that physical size can be countered by hand-to-hand combat skill. I routinely graple with other guys I know and have never beaten a 5'8" 160 lbs mixed wrestler and martial art's student. Me being 6'4" and 230, its alarming how much impact fighter skill can have in hand-to-hand combat. Even if you consider yourself physically strong and adapt, any situation will decline with confrontation. But it is also possible that the suspect will retreat.

3. Use a handgun. Mixing guns into any situation will likely turn it leathal.

The important thing to know is that you must feel that your life or a life of another is imminently threatened to shoot someone. It means their needs to be a clear and present threat of death or great bodily harm. This means NO you cannot shoot a retreating burglar, NO you cannot shoot someone looking for away to break into your house and likely NO you cannot shoot someone for mearly being in your house. Its entirely possible that the intruder is in desperate need for assistance and just trying to communicate.

Because this is a car forum, a car analagy is in need. Small cars in and of themselfs are safe when crashed into other small cars. When a small car crashes into a large car, the small car will lose. What you see is the need for the drivers who would drive small cars, buying bigger cars in fear of their person. Someone buys an sedan or wagon while another owns a SUV or Truck, ect... Everyone owning guns is like everyone driving MAC trucks, their might not be many accidents, but when there are, its going to be big.

The good news is that violent crime is receding in america.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

The real problem with owning a handgun; locked or hidden; loaded or unloaded; is who tends to be the ones leathally shot. Only 14% of the time the two parties involved do not know each other.
graph 1 shows homicides not specifically gun related.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.png
graph 2 shows a breakdown of gun and not gun related homicides. Whats important to note is that the only rise in gun homicides is during "stranger" altercations. This bill will likely increase homicides under this catagory. The level of saftey that will come of it is unknown.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relgun.png

[kingofthering]

But going on the U.S history of mentality, When a man broke into my mothers car 7 years ago one night, I have the right too walk outside and pop a cap in his head!..
That's wrong he took nothing we don't leave things things in the car, But by law i can do this correct? I'm deffending my house proerty family and myself..


Yes. (5 char. minimum)

[scottie300z]

Does this 25% figure include ALL Americans, ie children too? :confused:

By this I mean would the average family of four (2 adults & 2 kids) typically own two guns per household? :eek:

No, it was adult Americans. And it wasn't per gun. It was who owned guns. So, some spouses might say they also own their husband's gun(s).

[Fleet 500]

True, But it's like saying your poor your scum so you must commit crimes.

Not true. Many poor people don't commit crimes.


It's gone to far now to ban, That's my biggest issue on this, Noone because of this and that ever considered doing it.. We did it, And it's debatable if it's been a great success just worked or doesn't, Deepends who you talk too. But killing is killing, And gun killings are down.
Your more then likely be stuck by a knife or hit with a bat here then be shot, I'll take my cahces vs a bat or knife:D.

Don't need to ban guns, just criminals.


Crimes with a gun?.

Crimes overall.


Happens more then it should..
The guy robbing the station has got a gun, And the guy over the counter has one the cop runs in he might spray them all how would he know guns waving everywhere..

You are not very familiar with how the police operate, are you? Cops don't just "run in." They analyze the situation before making a move. Because they don't really know who the criminal is (the robber could claim to be a gas station clerk).


And thats why if one didnt have a gun noone would have been shot.

Better for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves (with a weapon) than just a criminal.


Bewcaue someone attacking you might have a gun because they are easy to get?.
Why is it first resort and not last?.
Who said it was a first resort? Contrary to myth, the typical (legal) gun owner is not trigger-happy. They don't want to use their gun unless absolutely necessary. And, under the Constitution, they have a right to.
The question on this thread should not be that citizens in D.C. are allowed to have guns (because it is their right under the Constitution), but why 4 U.S. Supreme Court judges voted "no."

[The_Canuck]

Don't need to ban guns, just criminals.



You mean you haven't banned criminals yet? They outlawed them here in 1987...

[Fleet 500]

You mean you haven't banned criminals yet? They outlawed them here in 1987...
We're getting around to it. We have to ban liberals first. ;)

[Kitdy]

Defending yourself is not "gunning someone down in cold blood."
Would it be any better if the criminal gunned me down in cold blood?

God and the big J.C. also don't look too kindly in getting killed!

Well, the Bible simply says: thou shalt not kill.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

No killing in self defense, no killing in the defense of others, no killing at all.

So in the eyes of God, it would be more acceptable to die yourself than to kill another.

[kingofthering]

Before we continue, I'd like to say that there's a difference between owning a gun w/proper training and murder.

[SlickHolden]

My point was to correlate the Americans you make fun of w/ yourself. But apparently it went over your head.
I can make fun if you like, But i didn't think i was, Aren't we talking about guns?.



That doesn't mean most Americans have guns. So what's your point? That you can jump to conclusions?Also it doesn't mean they stop saying it.. This doesn't come from overseas mouths by the way.


Except for when it's stated as fact. Such as "most Americans have guns." If you don't truly know the culture or have no way of knowing the culture well enough to make those statements maybe you just shouldn't. So while someone's opinion maybe that Americans live in fear, they aren't really basing that on anything concrete and join the group of Americans who think all people w/ brown skin = terrorist.Wrong an opinion isn't stated as a fact!.. I can makes facts but i simply was giving opinions based on what i read and see across the world as anyone else does on cars they read and view from a far.

I think it was more paranoid then fear?.

Think you will find some citizen's don't know the culture of there own country it's very hard too read.


See, this is where our differences in views come from. You are truly concerned about the well being of the criminal while most people in America just don't care. It may be a culture difference, I don't know. But myself and a lot of people I know just don't think he should be doing that and if he was doing what he was supposed to then he wouldn't have to worry about someone protecting their property.No i have morals i have a conscience i have respect for life, If i took a life it would need too be more then for some loose change.
But you make it out as know i condon robbery which i don't.

[SlickHolden]

No that is not correct. You cannot just go up to someone who breaks into your mothers car and shoot him/her. If you would then you would most certainly be facing manslaughter charges.
What of the Texan man that shot 2 robbers next door in his neighbours house? Cold blood in the back?.

However, if while making contact, him/her attack's you, you have a few choices under the law you can make.
I just bashed on the window ran outside in my undies and the prick ran off around the corner, Called the cops they dusted for prints they catch up with them, Nothing was taken.


1. Probably the best choice is to run. An offender committing auto or grand theft is not likely interested in you, or any property on your person.They don't work in groups much here, You just need to spot them and they run.


2. Fight back, this decision should be made based on both the subject and yourself. Be aware that physical size can be countered by hand-to-hand combat skill. I routinely graple with other guys I know and have never beaten a 5'8" 160 lbs mixed wrestler and martial art's student. Me being 6'4" and 230, its alarming how much impact fighter skill can have in hand-to-hand combat. Even if you consider yourself physically strong and adapt, any situation will decline with confrontation. But it is also possible that the suspect will retreat.It's rare it needs to come to this.


3. Use a handgun. Mixing guns into any situation will likely turn it leathal. Which is what i was saying, Guns just bring killing easier, Hand 2 hand is one thing but ad weapons and a desperet person it's lethal.


The important thing to know is that you must feel that your life or a life of another is imminently threatened to shoot someone. It means their needs to be a clear and present threat of death or great bodily harm. This means NO you cannot shoot a retreating burglar, NO you cannot shoot someone looking for away to break into your house and likely NO you cannot shoot someone for mearly being in your house. Its entirely possible that the intruder is in desperate need for assistance and just trying to communicate.We can get sued for someone breaking into our house and we hurt them, Pretty shit hey.
We live in an area they would call rough or a bad part, However 1 guy braking into a car in over 10 years isn't a bad part 2 me.
Now this is why i felt compelled to talk on this, Guy they are calling the 911 caller shoots 2 guys in the back in fear of his life, The switch board tells him time and time again to not go outside, But in the end he does,
And he kills them both not more then a few seconds after he does the police come.. Now after listening too the caller he was more pissed they were going to get away with it, The switch board tells him it's not worth killing someone over some property, He states the usual facts of it's my rights etc, And gets more and more agitated until he gets fed up and goes outside, Just before this the switch board tells him don't go outside your more then likely get hurt, He's comment was "wanna make a bet!"..
When i listen too this i think the guy was trigger happy and itching too shot someone, He wasn't in fear but that's the excuse he and his defence will give. Now if this man is allowed too get away with this, What is stopping someone else doing the same, Does it matter who's house it is driving along you see someone jumping a fence stop the car grab the shot gun and shoot them. IF this man is set free it means that next doors house is included.


Because this is a car forum, a car analagy is in need. Small cars in and of themselfs are safe when crashed into other small cars. When a small car crashes into a large car, the small car will lose. What you see is the need for the drivers who would drive small cars, buying bigger cars in fear of their person. Someone buys an sedan or wagon while another owns a SUV or Truck, ect... Everyone owning guns is like everyone driving MAC trucks, their might not be many accidents, but when there are, its going to be big.Don't know they have some pretty small cars with strength today.. Some little mini's packed as magnums,

The good news is that violent crime is receding in america.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

The real problem with owning a handgun; locked or hidden; loaded or unloaded; is who tends to be the ones leathally shot. Only 14% of the time the two parties involved do not know each other.
graph 1 shows homicides not specifically gun related.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relationship.png
graph 2 shows a breakdown of gun and not gun related homicides. Whats important to note is that the only rise in gun homicides is during "stranger" altercations. This bill will likely increase homicides under this catagory. The level of saftey that will come of it is unknown.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/relgun.png[/quote]
It's hard to find any statistics past 05, Is this for a reason?.


The make-my-day law, and the castle-law
Herd of this?.

[SlickHolden]

Yes. (5 char. minimum)What about a dildo?.

[SlickHolden]

Not true. Many poor people don't commit crimes.I think it was your comment that brought that forward.


Don't need to ban guns, just criminals.
Easier banning guns.


Crimes overall. ok


You are not very familiar with how the police operate, are you? Cops don't just "run in." They analyze the situation before making a move. Because they don't really know who the criminal is (the robber could claim to be a gas station clerk).
LOL..


Better for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves (with a weapon) than just a criminal.
Why because there is no gun control so as i said you need one to fight one because under the assumption everyone has one, Am i making this up or are they?.


Who said it was a first resort? Contrary to myth, the typical (legal) gun owner is not trigger-happy. They don't want to use their gun unless absolutely necessary. And, under the Constitution, they have a right to.
The question on this thread should not be that citizens in D.C. are allowed to have guns (because it is their right under the Constitution), but why 4 U.S. Supreme Court judges voted "no."
Who said it wasn't first resort?.

IS it this mans constitutional right too do this?.
LiveLeak.com - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937)

[kingofthering]

What about a dildo?.

Well... only if you want everyone to know that you had one stolen.

[Fleet 500]

I think it was your comment that brought that forward.

What comment was that?


Easier banning guns.

You can't "ban" guns. Criminals will make one if they have to.


LOL..

True, though. Cops rushing up to a scene and rushing into a situation is pretty much only done in movies and TV, not in real life.

Why because there is no gun control so as i said you need one to fight one because under the assumption everyone has one, Am i making this up or are they?.


Who said it wasn't first resort?

For the average gun owner, using it for self defense is a last resort.


IS it this mans constitutional right too do this?.
LiveLeak.com - 911 call of man that shot and killed 2 people that were burglarizing the house next door (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f3d_1195171937)

No, it isn't. He was wrong.

[Fleet 500]

Well, the Bible simply says: thou shalt not kill.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

No killing in self defense, no killing in the defense of others, no killing at all.

So in the eyes of God, it would be more acceptable to die yourself than to kill another.
The Bible also says "An eye for an eye."

Those in a war kill but are not punished by God.

And show me a passage in the Bible where it says it is better to die yourself than to kill another.

[Kitdy]

The Bible also says "An eye for an eye."

Those in a war kill but are not punished by God.

And show me a passage in the Bible where it says it is better to die yourself than to kill another.

Well here's what Wikipeida says:


The phrase "an eye for an eye", (Hebrew: עין תחת עין‎) is a quotation from Exodus 21:23–27 in which a person who has taken the eye of another in a fight is instructed to give his own eye in compensation.

So you have that exactly wrong.

Where in the Bible does it say that you should die yourself before you kill another?

It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't say that you should kill someone rather than be killed either, however, it does say that you should not kill.

How do you know that god doesn't punish those who kill in war? Are you god?

The commandment is: thou shalt not kill. Not shall shalt not kill except in war, it is thou shalt not kill.

EDIT: I must admit, I maybe knew, but forgot.

Form the Bible itself:


When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.

Wow! Slavery is legal in Christianity!

Awesome!

[digitalcraft]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Map-world-murder-rate.svg

That's what I was looking for. Basically.

You know what caused a decrease in crime in the US? Legalized abortion. It may be macabre to suggest it, but 13 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop drastically. Bad parents weren't having nearly as many kids reaching teenage years.

[kingofthering]

The Bible also says "An eye for an eye."

Those in a war kill but are not punished by God.

And show me a passage in the Bible where it says it is better to die yourself than to kill another.

The Bible also says it's perfectly fine to kill nonbelievers, people who work on the Sabbath, and homosexuals are bad!

Hmm...

[SlickHolden]

Well... only if you want everyone to know that you had one stolen.I could have been given as a present from you?..
I also said it was my mother car old toys from the past:p.


What comment was that?
The minority commits crimes was your reply too a comment a made on the small minority doesn't have weapons, I said "True, But it's like saying your poor your scum so you must commit crimes".

You can't "ban" guns. Criminals will make one if they have to.
It's almost a cop out that comment. We banned guns we did alright..
Fact is it's gone to far, But i would like too know how many of the guns that are used in crimes or shootings were once legal weapons?.




True, though. Cops rushing up to a scene and rushing into a situation is pretty much only done in movies and TV, not in real life.
Hey we all watch cops and swat:D.


Why because there is no gun control so as i said you need one to fight one because under the assumption everyone has one, Am i making this up or are they?.
If gun control was in place decades ago you wouldn't need a gun to fight a gun, But why is it always a gun is it because they are easy to get legal and illegal?. Isn't anyone trying too stop it is anyone trying?.
But it gets back to another posters comments, "Americans are paranoid" You can't help but support it some, Ban guns!.. No! why? Because someone might have a gun and i need one to kill them first. It turns away from a culture fear of maybe this maybe that might happen? better be safe rather then sorry.
Like a 9-11 caller listen to the police stay in doors, Now 2 men are dead all because he was itchy on the trigger with police seconds away.
He was in no danger just didn't want anyone getting away with stealing goods in his neighbourhood, Fare enough but killing them and telling the officer he is going to kill them is wrong, And you say is he to blame or is it the system that allows it?.. Everyone wants justice everyone knows scum but noone has the licence to kill when not directly in danger.


For the average gun owner, using it for self defense is a last resort.
I agree.. Real gun owners only take them out to dust them off and clean them out, And take them shooting from time to time, I don't like the idea of anyone carrying a gun around to be honest.




No, it isn't. He was wrong
True but it's almost the system allowing him to do it, I want to blame him solely and you can pretty much, But he used the law but he interrupted it wrong.. But he has been treated like a god that's wrong, No matter what shit came out of the house shooting them in the back was wrong..
What disturbed me more was how carm he was after doing it?.

[Jack_Bauer]

Defending yourself is not "gunning someone down in cold blood."
Would it be any better if the criminal gunned me down in cold blood?

God and the big J.C. also don't look too kindly in getting killed!

Sorry for the late reply to this thread, I know it's all but dead.


What you said was....


I own a rifle and if someone breaks down my door or is climbing in the window, intent on robbing me (or worse) I will not hesitate to use my gun. As the saying goes, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."


So effectively, it's a shoot on sight policy. Pull trigger first, ask questions later. What if the guy isn't even armed with anything, let alone a gun? You're shooting down an unarmed man. Again, I don't think the Big J.C. would be too thrilled at that.

You are doing your usual "all criminals are murderous psychopaths" stereotyping. Firstly, unless you are involved in some kind of Mafioso organised crime underworld that we don't know about, the chances of someone breaking into your house with the express purpose of killing you or your family is virtually nil. Secondly, people who burglarise houses don't do so with the intent of hurting or killing people. They do it to steal stuff so they can sell it. They will be far more interested in your PC and your TV/DVD player than in causing you any harm. Only a tiny minority of petty thieves will have the desire to hurt or kill anyone. Most just want to get your stuff and make a quick buck off of it, to feed their drug habit or whatever else may have driven them to burglary.

Now, ask yourself, which is most likely to be the most potentially dangerous situation for you and your family:

a) you hear someone breaking into your house, you call the police if possible in the time, if they threaten you with weapons you submit to them, put up with the admittedly disturbing experience of being robbed, let them take the TV and computer etc, then claim all your goodies back on the insurance?

b) you hear someone breaking into your house, you grab your rifle, you confront them and shoot on sight. It emerges the guy/gal wasn't armed or dangerous, and you just gunned down an unarmed man. And if you're a believer, you burn in the flames of Hell for all eternity?

c) you hear someone breaking into your house, you grab your rifle, you confront them and shoot. It turns out the crims ARE carrying guns this time, and they return fire, thus potentially resulting in serious injury/death for you, and also exponentially increasing the chances of your family getting injured or killed in the process?

If a burglar is just some smack addict looking for enough to score a fix, they most probably will do all they can to avoid trouble, and will flee if disturbed. They certainly won't want to kill anyone. If they are a bit more organised and serious, then they will likely attempt to rob you in groups of more than one, and will be armed in order to intimidate you. They will likely be more experienced with firearms, and although they don't enter your house with the intention of hurting/killing you, if you go in all guns blazing you can be damn sure they'll start firing back. You might get one or two of them, but chances are you'll get gunned down in the process. Everyone loses.

Basically, using a lethal firearm as your first course of action in any situation like that is rank stupidity.

[Kitdy]

You know what caused a decrease in crime in the US? Legalized abortion. It may be macabre to suggest it, but 13 years after abortion was legalized, crime rates began to drop drastically. Bad parents weren't having nearly as many kids reaching teenage years.

A Freakenomics reader eh?

[crisis]

Not quite. For a large number of Americans, guns have no part of their life.
With the level of proliferation in America guns are very much a part of everyone’s life.

The wise ones learn how to handle the weapon they own. (There are classes for that.)
There are classes for many things and there are people who regularly fail them. There are also people who never take them.


What do you suggest? Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you? Then you can defend yourself?
Why does he plan to kill? How many innocent people are killed by an unknown drug influenced assailant who breaks into their house with that sole intent?

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
I love gun nut clichés. Reminds me of the mentality I am dealing with.


Many criminals are under the influence of a drug. That is why they rob people- to pay for their drug addiction.
Unsupported , ambiguous conjecture.


A lot of them buy (or steal) them from other criminals.
And a lot steal them from legal owners.
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_mcjfRMRsesC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=criminals+stolen+guns&source=web&ots=PBWWqu3LXN&sig=A_yn6fZ1rmNqyLGY4u2NjUkO_UY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA196,M1)


Everyone here should watch the episode of Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t in which the 2nd Amendment is discussed.
Basically, you can pass all the gun control laws you want but there is something that is forgotten: CRAZY PEOPLE DO CRAZY THINGS and cannot be stopped. If a bad person wants a gun, he'll find a way to do it. There are illegal arms dealers and black market gun runners and all that. If a bad person wants a gun bad enough, he'll get it. There is no way around it.

To that effect, everyone should be issued a gun with training but not required to carry at all times for the sole purpose of a level playing field. If there was a 100% that any homeowner has a gun and will shoot, I bet break-ins don't occur quite as much (obviously unless no one was home). If there was a 50/50 chance that any person walking down the street had a gun I bet rapes and muggings would decrease.
Cool bet. The problem with it is that all of the other consequences of gun proliferation would be amplified by 100% gun ownership. Suicides involving guns and accidental shootings. And that leaves aside the notion that the very fact that a criminal will confront someone with a gun may force them to shoot first of attack with more violence when all they may have wanted to do was steal something.
All criminals are not going to give up crime because the job got more complicated. If they are “crazy” (which is not necessarily a label that can be given all criminals) they won’t care a shit whether you have a gun. They will just have to do something Crazier?

Also the government should fear its people. That is what the framers had in mind, they had just got done fighting a war with a tyrannical gov't and wanted to make sure that if it had to happen again it could. The people have guns so if the government gets out of line we can fight back.
Ooohhh goody!! Lets discuss the impossibility of the public being able to fight off some imagined rogue government. You go first. :D


EDIT: Also, if someone breaks into your house, depending where you live, criminals have sued homeowners (and won) for injuries suffered when the homeowner shot the intruder, its probably better to shot to injure or pull the gun and threaten until the real cops show up.
Yes you will surely be in a position to make a reasoned judgment and also fire at ease at your target. :rolleyes:

[Fleet 500]

With the level of proliferation in America guns are very much a part of everyone’s life.

Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are used correctly and safely.


There are classes for many things and there are people who regularly fail them. There are also people who never take them.

Do you have statistics which show how many law-abiding citizens use a gun wrongfully VS how many criminals do?


Why does he plan to kill? How many innocent people are killed by an unknown drug influenced assailant who breaks into their house with that sole intent?

Sorry, but anyone breaking into a house takes the risk of being injured or killed.


I love gun nut clichés. Reminds me of the mentality I am dealing with.

It is true, though. Many are still alive because they used their gun figuring that it is better to risk going to court rather than being dead.
BTW, I am not a gun nut; I haven't even looked at mine for several months.


Unsupported , ambiguous conjecture.

Do you have a source which confirms your claim?


And a lot steal them from legal owners.
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_mcjfRMRsesC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=criminals+stolen+guns&source=web&ots=PBWWqu3LXN&sig=A_yn6fZ1rmNqyLGY4u2NjUkO_UY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA196,M1)

I know that.

[Fleet 500]

What you said was....

So effectively, it's a shoot on sight policy. Pull trigger first, ask questions later. What if the guy isn't even armed with anything, let alone a gun? You're shooting down an unarmed man. Again, I don't think the Big J.C. would be too thrilled at that.

I never said I would shoot on sight (although a homeowner certainly has that right). I would warn the intruder that I have a gun pointed at him and urge he drop his weapon (if he had one) and drop to the floor.


You are doing your usual "all criminals are murderous psychopaths" stereotyping. Firstly, unless you are involved in some kind of Mafioso organised crime underworld that we don't know about, the chances of someone breaking into your house with the express purpose of killing you or your family is virtually nil. Secondly, people who burglarise houses don't do so with the intent of hurting or killing people. They do it to steal stuff so they can sell it. They will be far more interested in your PC and your TV/DVD player than in causing you any harm. Only a tiny minority of petty thieves will have the desire to hurt or kill anyone. Most just want to get your stuff and make a quick buck off of it, to feed their drug habit or whatever else may have driven them to burglary.

Lol. Interesting how you seem to have more concern for the criminal than the homeowner. Let's get one thing straight... it is the criminal who is the lawbreaker! A homeowner has a right to defend himself.


Now, ask yourself, which is most likely to be the most potentially dangerous situation for you and your family:

a) you hear someone breaking into your house, you call the police if possible in the time, if they threaten you with weapons you submit to them, put up with the admittedly disturbing experience of being robbed, let them take the TV and computer etc, then claim all your goodies back on the insurance?

b) you hear someone breaking into your house, you grab your rifle, you confront them and shoot on sight. It emerges the guy/gal wasn't armed or dangerous, and you just gunned down an unarmed man. And if you're a believer, you burn in the flames of Hell for all eternity?

c) you hear someone breaking into your house, you grab your rifle, you confront them and shoot. It turns out the crims ARE carrying guns this time, and they return fire, thus potentially resulting in serious injury/death for you, and also exponentially increasing the chances of your family getting injured or killed in the process?

I would pick d). Call the police (which usually means that won't get here until long after the crime has taken place). Then warn the criminal that I have a gun (and know how to use it). Tell him to surrender. Many times, the criminal would flee after hearing that (which he probably wouldn't do if I were unarmed). If instead he starts shooting in my direction, I would shoot back. My life is now threatened and I have every right to protect my life.


If a burglar is just some smack addict looking for enough to score a fix, they most probably will do all they can to avoid trouble, and will flee if disturbed. They certainly won't want to kill anyone. If they are a bit more organised and serious, then they will likely attempt to rob you in groups of more than one, and will be armed in order to intimidate you. They will likely be more experienced with firearms, and although they don't enter your house with the intention of hurting/killing you, if you go in all guns blazing you can be damn sure they'll start firing back. You might get one or two of them, but chances are you'll get gunned down in the process. Everyone loses.

Have you heard of the term "Home Invasion Robbery?" If not, look it up.


Basically, using a lethal firearm as your first course of action in any situation like that is rank stupidity

Again, responsible homeowners will call out a warning first.

[Fleet 500]

I agree.. Real gun owners only take them out to dust them off and clean them out, And take them shooting from time to time, I don't like the idea of anyone carrying a gun around to be honest.

Some people do just that... carry a gun around. And guess what? It's really no big deal as the article I will post shortly shows.

[Fleet 500]

The Bible also says it's perfectly fine to kill nonbelievers, people who work on the Sabbath, and homosexuals are bad!

Hmm...
Would that be the Old or New Testament?

[Fleet 500]

This article was in a local newspaper a few weeks ago.

It describes a man in Utah who openly wears a gun.
"He carries his Glock 23 gun openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers. He and his wife drop off their 5-year-old daughter at elementary school with pistols hanging from their hip holsters, and have never received a complaint."

"Having pistols strapped to their waists made Shel Anderson, 67, and his wife Kaye, 63, feel more secure. Longtime recreational shooters, they began to carry their pistols openly after a spate of home-invasion robberies."

This site explains what states allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns, states which don't and states which allow carrying an unloaded gun (California is one).
OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! (http://www.OpenCarry.org)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I'd imagine many people don't complain about it because many people don't socialise with the obvious crazy & His family.

I mean, he's 67 and has a 5 year old daughter. with his 63 year old wife. numbers that don't quite add up in my head, but whatever.

[roosterjuicer]

yeah, thats what i was saying. when they did the survey to find that 1 in 4 houses have a firearm, it doesn't work since they just took the number of guns and divided it by number of households.
i have something like 8 guns (yes i don't know exactly; two friends who don't have safes are storing theirs in mine), so that throws off the stats for my entire street lol.

haha i have 8 also. 8 is a good number

[SlickHolden]

Some people do just that... carry a gun around. And guess what? It's really no big deal as the article I will post shortly shows.
Very rarely have confrontation at all, IS that because he has a gun:D.
Still as that video says the debate still rages do gun stop or cause more harm?.

They only carry guns under the assumption that anyone around them might have one and intends too kill them or steal something off them or injure them, Home burglary shouldn't have any reason behind carrying a weapon into shops schools etc. There not associated they shouldn't be there's home safety and then there walking in public with a gun.

In some ways it is paranoia. Based on history which really has only one conclusion, Your own culture is probably killing you.

However take them gun owners and replace them with an Iraq or Iran Afghan couple. Now the picture will change fast.
I'd be uncomfortable with anyone having a un concealed weapon.
I take no comfort in knowing they feel safe showing it, They make me feel uncomfortable they make me nerves and it's all too make themselves feel good safe and happy not anyone else.

Buy a few houses over here has rifles in his house, Legally but the guy has been called a few cents short of a $1.. But that doesn't worry me. He doesn't bring them out into public eyes and he doesn't sleep with one at all corners of the house.

Older people are more paranoid and loose reflexes etc, As i get older i seem to become more paranoid..
People probably look at this elderly couple with a 5 year old daughter? I'm with IB4R on this strange but anyway they see them and think they might wet themselves before they get the weapon out of it's holster.
That's not being rude that's some of the younger generations thinking.

But then they except gun in elderly hands but cringe at the sight of an elderly man or women behind the wheel of a car:confused:.

I hope they ban hand guns, Simply the use of the bible to claim rights on carrying guns is wrong, The bible also says many things that have been ignored;). Only read and accept what suits you (not you) is the way i see this topic.
It's more i want something (Gun) it makes me feel good try and take it off me and you will get a fight mark my words.

[roosterjuicer]

Ooohhh goody!! Lets discuss the impossibility of the public being able to fight off some imagined rogue government. You go first. :D


Explain this comment perhaps im not understanding if you are being sarcastic or not.

But to be honest I do think the whole "the government should fear its people" is one of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment. I dont think its so much of a "imagined rogue government" but more to protect ourselves if our own government goes bad.

It goes back to the whole revolutionary war thing.

Also, i dont know why you think its impossible for the public to fight off the government. We did it against the Brits. The vietcong did it against us and the south vietnamese. The iraqi's are sort of doing it against us right now. And the French did it against king Louis.

[SlickHolden]

Why is it you can't legally drink until 21 but you can legal have sex have a family buy a home or move out of home rent drive a car drive a truck go overseas marry the same sex and carry a handgun?.. Bit weird to me.

Thats like not being able to have kids until 21 but allowed sex @ 16:eek:.

[Fleet 500]

I'd imagine many people don't complain about it because many people don't socialise with the obvious crazy & His family.

He is "crazy" because he carries a weapon? That is ridiculous. I think you missed the point of that article... that many normal people do carry weapons. He is just as normal as you and I.


I mean, he's 67 and has a 5 year old daughter. with his 63 year old wife. numbers that don't quite add up in my head, but whatever

I think you read the article too fast. The two who are aged 67 and 63 are named Anderson. The one who has a 5-year-old is named Jensen.

[Dino Scuderia]

Hasn't anyone ever herd the saying life changes?.

I was watching some new and seen how a man killed 2 guys that were next door robbing his mates house..
Now the cop on the switch board told him repeatability to not go outside, Well long story short he went out and shot them in the back dead.
He claims he was in fear of his property and family.. And laws state he can have guns etc.
But my question is, Who's right is it too shot someone unarmed in the back when you are not directly in danger or someone else life in danger?.

A man's house is his castle, But his Neighbours is also it seems?.
If this man isnt found atleat gultiy on manslaughter what does this show?, That's it's fine to shoot anyone that is 100 meters near you if they make you nerves.. And are personal goods that can be replaced worth taking someones life over?.

If someone was trying too kill me make no mistake aobut it i would kill them. But i woudlnt walk up behind soemone stick a gun in there back and shoot them because they stole some DVD's or cash from my house.. Mor ethen likley grab a bat and smack them down, Wait for the cops. Not worth taking a life or putting yuorself in real danger for something that can be replaced easy enough, Life can't be replaced goods can be.


America is rulled by guns, Everyone has one and everyone that doesnt have one needs one, And there the probelm is, Not everyone is capble and responsible enough to have a weapon let alone a swiss army knife.
And also that weapon that you thnik protects you might be turned on you.

But can i ad something, There is no such thing as Freedom!. It's a mith!.

Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

By JUAN A. LOZANO – 4 hours ago

HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

The Associated Press: Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3OsajRB6BM1On6y5d66X8hodrwD91KJA7G1)

[crisis]

Nothing wrong with that, as long as they are used correctly and safely.
Thankyou for a statement of the obvious. What should also be obvious is that in thousands of cases yearly they are not.


Do you have statistics which show how many law-abiding citizens use a gun wrongfully VS how many criminals do?
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

FIREARMS TUTORIAL (http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html)

However as criminals also use guns wrongfully we must include them in the incorrect usage group. All are consequences of widespread gun proliferation.


Sorry, but anyone breaking into a house takes the risk of being injured or killed.
Yes point well missed. Let me explain. You made this claim “Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you?” as though it is a regular or typical occurrence.
I ask again
“Why does he plan to kill?
How many innocent people are killed by an unknown drug influenced assailant who breaks into their house with that sole intent?”

Set the scene. Do you then have statistics which show how many times this type of scenario happens?



It is true, though. Many are still alive because they used their gun figuring that it is better to risk going to court rather than being dead.

How many? Be careful not to quote from John Lotts spurious results. Yes there must obviously be people who have used a gun to defend themselves and almost certainly they achieved a desirable outcome. But in almost all cases it will never be known what the outcome would have been if a gun was not present and another measure was taken. The amount of positive outcomes from these encounters must be weighed against the amount of undesirable consequences of gun proliferation and only then is the picture complete. We know there are around 30,000 deaths in the U.S. per year as a result of firearms. We do not know how many people achieved a more desirable outcome from producing one in an altercation.
There is also the impact on the amount of guns available for criminals as a result of reducing the amount generally available. That has been seen in Australia quite clearly.



BTW, I am not a gun nut; I haven't even looked at mine for several months.

Well I didn’t really say you were but you should refrain from using their jingoes.



Do you have a source which confirms your claim?

I don’t need a source to refute my claim. My claim is that your stament is “Unsupported , ambiguous conjecture.”
I will outline my resons for making this statment if you insist.
It is clearly unsupported as there is no support ie “a source which confirms your claims” that “Many criminals are under the influence of a drug. That is why they rob people- to pay for their drug addiction.”

This is something you need to address.

Your statement is also “ambiguous” (of uncertain nature or significance) as it came about as a result of a contention of your previous unsupported statement “Ask the criminal breaking into your home (of which many are under the influence of some drug) if he plans to kill you? Then you can defend yourself” You supposition that many criminals breaking into your room (how many a week do you get ?) are “under the influence of some drug” needs verification as well as some explanation as to why that would be of particular significance.

Your statement is also conjecture (speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing usually with little hard evidence) the reasons being clearly outlined above.

[crisis]

This article was in a local newspaper a few weeks ago.

It describes a man in Utah who openly wears a gun.
"He carries his Glock 23 gun openly into his bank, restaurants and shopping centers. He and his wife drop off their 5-year-old daughter at elementary school with pistols hanging from their hip holsters, and have never received a complaint."

"Having pistols strapped to their waists made Shel Anderson, 67, and his wife Kaye, 63, feel more secure. Longtime recreational shooters, they began to carry their pistols openly after a spate of home-invasion robberies."

This site explains what states allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns, states which don't and states which allow carrying an unloaded gun (California is one).
OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! (http://www.OpenCarry.org)
There sir is your gun nut. Firstly the fact that both of these loonies openly carry a pistol. One is not enough huh? Where do they live again? The hills of Afghanistan, Bolivia? What kind of third world is the US if people need to carry guns Wild West style. But this has more to do with misinformed paranoia or plain nuttiness of the highest order. And as stated no wonder no one comes near those fruit cakes. Both criminals and the sane. I wonder how many criminals would be lining up to attack them if they weren’t packin? None also? How many of the other people dropping off their kids at elementary school are getting mugged by the way?

Thanks for the laugh Fleet.

And you cite a gun nut website to prove a gun nut point. Seriously!

[Sledgehammer]

The Associated Press: Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3OsajRB6BM1On6y5d66X8hodrwD91KJA7G1)

WHAT THE FU$*!!!


"Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him."

So they threatened him, seeing that he was holding a shotgun, then calmly turned around again without a shit's whoo haa and kept trying to break into the car. WHAT THE JESUS GOD DAMN HELL. This seriuosly pisses me off. It troubles the mind thinking what would happen if Texas law was commonplace throughout the country.

[Sledgehammer]

There sir is your gun nut. Firstly the fact that both of these loonies openly carry...

I want to clear this point a little. Open carry is just that, the gun must be in "plain sight" or not hidden. There are a few states that allow complete "open carry" but citizens can still be cited for this, expecially in public areas. It must be considered (for a lack of better term) non-taboo. In other words, people's actions around you should not be altered/changed in anyway based on they're knowledge of the persons carrying of a gun. They can be cited for disorderely conduct.

In the case of Utah, I think a citizen needs some liscense or permit to carry a gun in plain sight.

Open carry to me is a "just because you can, doesnt mean that you should" thing. For the most part open carrying is a selfish, and completly unnecessary act which will do more harm than good.

[crisis]

Explain this comment perhaps im not understanding if you are being sarcastic or not.
Yeah very. Sorry but this crap kills me.

But to be honest I do think the whole "the government should fear its people" is one of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment. I dont think its so much of a "imagined rogue government" but more to protect ourselves if our own government goes bad.
Yes well they wouldn’t for that reason and you couldn’t protect yourselves anyway.


It goes back to the whole revolutionary war thing.
Um 200 years ago. Since then electricity, the combustion engine, powered flight, hi tech weapons, mass communication, consumerism, cyberspace etc.


Also, i dont know why you think its impossible for the public to fight off the government. We did it against the Brits.
See above.


The vietcong did it against us and the south vietnamese.
Completely different. Must I explain?


The iraqi's are sort of doing it against us right now. And the French did it against king Louis.
All so different. Times, technology, scenario.
Look, it is a quaint and romantic notion that somehow has entered many heads mainly through pro gun propaganda.
You need to address a few points before even worrying about if you could defend yourselves.
1. What would it take from a government to drive the majority (and it would have to be a vast majority) of the population to lay down their lives to fight against?
2. Whatever this is why would they do it?

[jcp123]

All I can say is, good.

[Fleet 500]

All I can say is, good.
Me, too. I don't see what the big deal is... the U.S. Supreme Court voted to continue the 2nd amendment. Which they should have. The dicussion should be about why 4 voted not to continue to allow the right to own weapons.

As I said before, deal with the criminals, not guns. If criminals who got a "20 year" sentence actually serve that time instead of 5 or 8 years, society would be a lot better off.

The laws, unfortunately, have become very lax. 50 or 60 years ago, rape meant a life sentence. Now what is it? 10 years?

Townhall.com::Control Criminals Not Guns::By Walter E. Williams (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/21/control_criminals_not_guns)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It's a situation that shouldn't ever arise.

You need a gun to protect yourself from unknown and dangerous criminal entities.

But society itself is dangerous because you continue the culture of gun carrying and, heaven forbid, shootings.

Has society really gotten so bad that you need to carry a gun, in public, to have dinner?

If so, suddenly I understand why you wish to move into a gated community. Just be careful of clampers :)

[Wouter Melissen]

The laws, unfortunately, have become very lax. 50 or 60 years ago, rape meant a life sentence. Now what is it? 10 years?

Aren't you a republican? Longer sentences will mean higher taxes!!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Those criminals will be a drain on society & the taxpayer, and will live better in prison than they would in the real world.....

[Fleet 500]

Aren't you a republican? Longer sentences will mean higher taxes!!
Worth it if it keeps the general public safe. ;)

[Fleet 500]

It's a situation that shouldn't ever arise.

You need a gun to protect yourself from unknown and dangerous criminal entities.

But society itself is dangerous because you continue the culture of gun carrying and, heaven forbid, shootings.

Has society really gotten so bad that you need to carry a gun, in public, to have dinner?

If so, suddenly I understand why you wish to move into a gated community. Just be careful of clampers :)
No, it hasn't. Some people choose to have a weapon in case the relatively slight chance that they are robbed happens.

[henk4]

Worth it if it keeps the general public safe. ;)

a good opener......public transport is a way to lower traffic casualties...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

No, it hasn't. Some people choose to have a weapon in case the relatively slight chance that they are robbed happens.

So you choose to be in fact a much more dangerous entity than you could ever face.

Please tell me why on earth you would choose to be the most dangerous person on the street.

[Fleet 500]

So you choose to be in fact a much more dangerous entity than you could ever face.

Please tell me why on earth you would choose to be the most dangerous person on the street.
Come on... get over it.
You are blowing things out of proportion.

I DON"T carry a weapon on the street!

[Fleet 500]

a good opener......public transport is a way to lower traffic casualties...
Actually, I guess prisoners are safer than the general public (no car accidents, motorcycle accidents, etc)... unless they are attacked by another prisoner.

Even so, I think I would rather stay out of jail. I don't like small rooms. ;)

[henk4]

Actually, I guess prisoners are safer than the general public (no car accidents, motorcycle accidents, etc)... unless they are attacked by another prisoner.

Even so, I think I would rather stay out of jail. I don't like small rooms. ;)avoiding the subject...tax increases are justified to put more prisoners behind bars, but not for improving public transport?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Come on... get over it.
You are blowing things out of proportion.

I DON"T carry a weapon on the street!

How is that blowing things out of proportion.

The remote chance that, in a safe society, you get robbed, somehow allows you, by your logic, to carry a loaded, dangerous weapon on your person in broad daylight.

That, considering the safe and secure nature of your surroundings for the most part, makes this person, the only person armed & indeed very dangerous.

The most dangerous person, in fact, on that street.

[Fleet 500]

How is that blowing things out of proportion.

Because you refer to gun owners as "crazy."


The remote chance that, in a safe society, you get robbed, somehow allows you, by your logic, to carry a loaded, dangerous weapon on your person in broad daylight.

In many states, citizens have that right.


That, considering the safe and secure nature of your surroundings for the most part, makes this person, the only person armed & indeed very dangerous.

The most dangerous person, in fact, on that street

No, a responsible gun owner is no more dangerous than someone who is unarmed.
And the most dangerous person on the street are criminals.

[Fleet 500]

avoiding the subject...tax increases are justified to put more prisoners behind bars, but not for improving public transport?
The amount the state and government gets from taxes are plenty for both.
That is why there is a subway system under Los Angeles now. I believe it is being expanded, too.

[SlickHolden]

Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars

By JUAN A. LOZANO – 4 hours ago

HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas man who shot and killed two men he suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's home cleared in the shootings Monday by a grand jury.

Joe Horn, 61, shot the two men in November after he saw them crawling out the windows of a neighbor's house in the Houston suburb of Pasadena.

Horn called 911 and told the dispatcher he had a shotgun and was going to kill the men. The dispatcher pleaded with him not to go outside, but Horn confronted the men with a 12-gauge shotgun and shot both in the back.

"The message we're trying to send today is the criminal justice system works," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson said.

Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, has said his client believed the two men had broken into his neighbor's home and that he shot them only when they came into his yard and threatened him.

The suspected burglars, Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia. Torres was deported to Colombia in 1999 after a 1994 cocaine-related conviction.

The episode touched off protests from civil rights activists who said the shooting was racially motivated and that Horn took the law into his own hands. Horn's supporters defended his actions, saying he was protecting himself and being a good neighbor to a homeowner who was out of town.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Magidson said. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

Lambright did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they are in mortal danger. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.

It's not clear whether the neighbor whose home was burglarized asked Horn to watch over his house.

The Associated Press: Texas man cleared in shooting of possible burglars (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gP3OsajRB6BM1On6y5d66X8hodrwD91KJA7G1)
After listening to the caller you find out he doesn't hardly know the people living there if at all really.
So that slightly blows that argument they used even the assumption he might have asked him too look after the home..
Even on his call you don't hear a word of argument from anyone towards him, He claims they came in his yard he didn't mention they tried to attack him, Fact is they got slugs in the back so coming at him doesn't ad up and running away from him does. Or were they running or walking away when shot. He did the right thing by calling the police, He didn't the wrong thing by walking outside, He openly admitted he was going to kill them. Very lucky man very lucky.
Once stepping outside he steps into dangerous territory putting possibly himself in grave danger stupidly with police seconds away.

And after all this they still say possible burglars??. He was trigger happy.


So they threatened him, seeing that he was holding a shotgun, then calmly turned around again without a shit's whoo haa and kept trying to break into the car. WHAT THE JESUS GOD DAMN HELL. This seriuosly pisses me off. It troubles the mind thinking what would happen if Texas law was commonplace throughout the country.
People like me would be shot, A few years ago i had to break into my own house left car keys in the house after my mother left she locked the door and shit i left them in the house phone and all.. I had to pick her up there was this little gap in the window i got my hand in and open it enough, Jumped up go in wasnt easy small gap, IF this bloke was next door he would have shot me:eek:.


I DON"T carry a weapon on the street!
Didn't think you had a weapon by the way you spoke about it earlier in the thread:rolleyes:?

[Dino Scuderia]

SlickHolden said:


He openly admitted he was going to kill them.

This is my main problem with the outcome also. He said he was going to kill them then he did...to me that smells of premeditated murder.

I'm curious as to how this aspect was dealt with in the court.

[henk4]

SlickHolden said:



This is my main problem with the outcome also. He said he was going to kill them then he did...to me that smells of premeditated murder.

I'm curious as to how this aspect was dealt with in the court.

probably they considered that he had the right to do it, and that he simply announced that he was go to make use of ("execute") his rights......

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Because you refer to gun owners as "crazy."

Have you met clutch_Monkey?




In many states, citizens have that right.

Right, the right to bear arms.

Which has been upheld. Which is fine. If they weren't abused by people who are obviously so paranoid about their own safety they carry a gun to a classroom.



No, a responsible gun owner is no more dangerous than someone who is unarmed.
And the most dangerous person on the street are criminals.

There are so many criminals on the street, aren't there. it's a dangerous place, in public.

Responsibilty has little to do with it when the heat of the moment comes. the Gun owner feels responsibility to protect his life and those he cares about....yes, even his possessions, which IMHO aren't worth dying over, by the way.

Even the most responsible of gun owners, when the option is there, will go too far.

[nota]

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.

(Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Reuters)

US most armed country in the world (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=290729)

[henk4]

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.

(Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Reuters)

US most armed country in the world (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=290729)

we will support Yemen, now the runner up with 61 guns for every 100 Yemenites....;)

[SlickHolden]

SlickHolden said:



This is my main problem with the outcome also. He said he was going to kill them then he did...to me that smells of premeditated murder.

I'm curious as to how this aspect was dealt with in the court.
Yes that would be nice to know, Your right i didn't look at it like that before but premeditated yes it does seem like this. Which you wonder how he got off it.


probably they considered that he had the right to do it, and that he simply announced that he was go to make use of ("execute") his rights......
That's the part that stinks, The "rights claim".. You wonder if they have there heads screwed on right it's bending laws that common decent people wouldn't unless in a situation of no return, This guy clearly had many options but choose murder using "My rights" As an excuse to do it.

[SlickHolden]

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world.

(Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Reuters)

US most armed country in the world (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=290729)
That's bad considering places we look at and think .

"hey they are barbarians, They walk down the street with guns they shoot them in the air all the time they are reckless"

I have seen country's on TV where it seems every time they come on they have a gun in there hands kids even have guns.

Our gun laws are 50/50, Some say they don't work some say nothing has changed some think it's a better place some think who cares some say it's not enough..

Take away the underworld here in Victoria and the gun killing rate drops, IT is lower now then 10+ years ago, Today they use knifes or bats in fist fights, Better then guns i mist say.


BTW where did Australia come in with guns, Didn't see us there?.

[roosterjuicer]

It troubles the mind thinking what would happen if Texas law was commonplace throughout the country.

Probably be a lot less break-ins

[Dino Scuderia]

There are over 20 states which have adopted a 'Castle Doctrine' but they are not all identical in how they are constructed.

[henk4]

There are over 20 states which have adopted a 'Castle Doctrine' but they are not all identical in how they are constructed.

time to make this a subject of federal legislation....

[Dino Scuderia]

time to make this a subject of federal legislation....

Nah, I rather let the states decide.

[henk4]

Nah, I rather let the states decide.

that means 52 different regulations, very unpractical....

[Dino Scuderia]

that means 52 different regulations, very unpractical....

We have 52 states? Iraq doesn't count as one.:D

[henk4]

We have 52 states? Iraq doesn't count as one.:D

Guantanamo...

[Dino Scuderia]

Guantanamo...


Don't feel bad, Obama said he'd been to all 57 states and he lives here.;)

[henk4]

Don't feel bad, Obama said he'd been to all 57 states and he lives here.;)

anticipating some separatists movements I suppose...

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Quick Question.

Do they really need two dakotas?

[scottie300z]

Quick Question.

Do they really need two dakotas?

No. We tried giving North Dakota to Canada but they wouldn't even take it.

[SlickHolden]

Make my day law? Why why why?.

[MRR]

Another reason the 2nd amendment was put in place when the country was founded was a sort of last resort check against unrestrained central power. Think about it, dictators love unarmed citizens and I believe the communist manifesto also declared that the citizens must be disarmed. At least in the past it was as much about power of the people vs. government as the right to have weapons for self defense and recreation.

[nota]

Another reason the 2nd amendment was put in place when the country was founded was a sort of last resort check against unrestrained central power. Think about it, dictators love unarmed citizens and I believe the communist manifesto also declared that the citizens must be disarmed. At least in the past it was as much about power of the people vs. government as the right to have weapons for self defense and recreation.
Creepily, I can almost imagine the scenario when of all your gun-toting US 'freedom fighter' weirdos RISE UP and begin storming Capitol Hill in the richeous Ameri-Christian quest to liberate Ol' Glory (and thence FREE the world) from 'unrestrained power' and that dang accursed communist manifesto

[henk4]

Creepily, I can almost imagine the scenario when of all your gun-toting US 'freedom fighter' weirdos RISE UP and begin storming Capitol Hill in the richeous Ameri-Christian quest to liberate Ol' Glory (and thence FREE the world) from 'unrestrained power' and that dang accursed communist manifesto

well, I wouldn't have blamed them if in this way they would have got rid of GWB, who's reign was greatly characterised by "unrestrained power". I am afraid though if they had done that, GWB would have called them "terrorists"

[nota]

well, I wouldn't have blamed them if in this way they would have got rid of GWB, who's reign was greatly characterised by "unrestrained power". I am afraid though if they had done that, GWB would have called them "terrorists"
Speaking of terrorist regimes..




As an indication of the state of self-deception with which the US seduces itself, the previous US attorney-general, John Ashcroft, sought to characterise the superiority of the American variety of torture, as opposed to that employed by nastier regimes.

On water torture he explained:

"We don't force the water, we pour - big difference."

[henk4]

Speaking of terrorist regimes..
I thought gravity is a force too....

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Well considering the nasty row over creationism being taught in schools, it's likely that a war against gravity would have been fought.

and lost.

[SlickHolden]

Can G Dubya bush pronounce terrorist?.

He is after all still stuck trying to work out that song, Fooled me once.

YouTube - George W Bush comedian or idiot? (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=o4DykmZz_YA)

[crisis]

Another reason the 2nd amendment was put in place when the country was founded was a sort of last resort check against unrestrained central power. Think about it, dictators love unarmed citizens and I believe the communist manifesto also declared that the citizens must be disarmed. At least in the past it was as much about power of the people vs. government as the right to have weapons for self defense and recreation.
While I think most of the reasoning behind why people want to have a proliferation of privately owed guns is flawed that one is the most laughable.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/816809-post143.html

[nota]

I thought gravity is a force too....
Henk it was nothing less than an appalling statement, and incredibly it comes the lips of the Highest Legal Authority of the USA!

And this from a country that never hesitates to lecture all & sundry worldwide as to their proported 'moral leadership' :rolleyes: (God given)

In this context their recent Soopreme Court decision is hardly surprising, or that some gun-crazy vigilante can eagerly proceed to murder 2 minor criminals in cold blood .. while talking to cops on the phone, mind .. and yet be aquitted of any crime!

[henk4]

Henk it was nothing less than an appalling statement, and incredibly it comes the lips of the Highest Legal Authority of the USA!

And this from a country that never hesitates to lecture all & sundry worldwide as to their proported 'moral leadership' :rolleyes: (God given)

In this context their recent Soopreme Court decision is hardly surprising, or that some gun-crazy vigilante can eagerly proceed to murder 2 minor criminals in cold blood .. while talking to cops on the phone, mind .. and yet be aquitted of any crime!

of course it was;)