Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51

Thread: Andy Rooneys outlook

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    That depends on what type of crime your talking of.

    I'm sure petty crime would be down, but serious crime, like murder, manslaughter and greivous bodily harm would almost certainly go up. you don't just stop the person entering your home, you take their life for it. After all, it's only property, no matter how much it's worth, it's not worth a life.

    I'm sure i'd respond differently if my family had been terrorised by a burglar or a criminal, but the fact remains; it's still only property.

    any type of crime (Whether it be gun related or not) is still a daily occurance in your area, as you've mentioned, and a Hit and Run in my city is always front page news, it's amazing the contrasts, we seem to be less on edge and less paranoid i guess.

    I do agree police can't be everywhere, but they can do their best. unfortunately the resources aren't there. If the U.S was serious about National Security they'd spend less time trying to liberate other countries and more time diverting resources to their own. America has a High poverty rate (Almost a million children live in poverty, quite surprising considering the so-called excess of american culture), education is on the decline and the police can't do their job because people decide to look after themselves. Noble cause it may be, but in the end they are still under the control of the law.

    this is my two cents, i see police everyday checking speeds of motorists more than they help citizens, it's turned into a money making enterprise in my eyes. so much for protecting and serving, more like bullying and emptying-your-wallet.
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,466
    It doesn't take a whole village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid; and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say "NO!"
    Bullshit. Violence does not solve jack shit. If anything, smacking will only make the child believe violence solves problems which will eventually lead to trouble with the law. I think firm verbal punishment is alright, but smacking is a disgrace, and indeed should be banned. How would you like if you were this poor little kid getting his little ass smacked everytime he did something wrong? Just think about that before you ever smack someone.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    There is something fundamentaly wrong with American culture though.
    There is a huge murder rate, compared to any European country.

    I don't think that guns are the cause of the problem though, but peoples attitude to them.

    Canada supposedly has more guns per person statistically*, but a much lower murder rate.

    I think the authorities need to put some serious research into why there is this disposition to shoot them at people in America, and not in other countries.

    I don't agree with the fact that everyone should have a gun to defend themselves with:

    In this country if someone breaks into your house, and you are there, they will probably have a weapon; a bat, or knife, maybe a gun, and they will probably be after the keys to your sports car. (they are usually stolen to order).

    So what do you do? You let them take it of course.
    You have insurance, and you probably fitted a tracker, so they have a chance of catching the people responsible.
    A car, or any other possesion is not worth getting seriously injured/ killed over.

    In America, with a gun in the house, it is so much easier to pull it out and shoot them, or get shot first.

    Is it really worth killing anyone to protect a few replaceable objects?



    *statistics are never true
    Thanks for all the fish

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    420
    Understandably, you guys have limited knowledge of typical U.S. self-defense laws. In most states, using lethal force to only protect property is a legally dangerous thing to do, and in many places is specifically outlawed. Self-defense means that, in order to be justified in using lethal force, you have to be in fear of your life or the life of someone else. Now when someone is attempting to invade your home while you are present, you have no way of knowing their intentions, or if they are armed, and in that situation you are perfectly justified in shooting them, and I would do so in a blink to prevent even the possibility of myself or my family being injured, killed, assaulted, etc.

    And the previous posters were correct in that almost none of the gun crimes in the U.S. are committed with legal guns. And unless someone can de-invent the firearm, getting all those illegal guns off the streets is unrealistic. The War on Drugs has proven the government's inability to stop the flow of illegal drugs, illegal guns are no different. Add to that the number of guns already in existence, and the fact that if they are cared for, firearms last and remain usable for decades. I have a Czech pistol that is over 50 years old. So you can't count on attrition to remove illegal guns from the streets, either.

    36 out of the 50 states now have laws that permit the average citizen, after passing all required background checks, being fingerprinted, and passing a state-approved safety & marksmanship course, to carry a concealed firearm in public places. In North Carolina today approximately 3% of the population hold these permits. Over the past 10 years, the states that have instituted concealed-carry have seen a significant and verifiable drop in violent crime. Criminals interviewed in prison consistently state that these armed citizens are their biggest fear. Crimes committed with these legally-carried weapons are almost totally nonexistent. The bloodbaths predicted by opponents of these laws have never materialized.

    It also needs to be understood that, in approx. 95% of incidents where a citizen uses a legal firearm to prevent a crime, no shots are fired. The mere presence of the firearm is sufficient to defuse the situation and discourage the assailant. This fact leads to many such incidents going unreported, but the best estimates are that legally-owned firearms are used to prevent crimes in the United States between 500,000 and 2 million times each year.

    It sounds like Canberra has done a good job of reducing violent crime, but that's not the case in all of Australia, and it's certainly not the case in the U.K. Since the British people were disarmed, violent crime has increased dramatically, and you are now six times more likely to be mugged on the streets of London than you are on the streets of New York.

    I purposely chose to live in one of the states the has fewer restrictions on legal gun ownership. I prefer to live in a society which recognizes the right of a person to defend themselves from criminal predators. When a person decides to become a criminal, they assume all the risks that come with such a lifestyle.
    "The good news is, not one of the 50 states has the death penalty for speeding....although I'm not too sure about Ohio."

    Sesquipedalian -- a really cool word. It means long-winded, polysyllabic, or verbose. See the word describes itself...isn't that neat?

    1988 Nissan 200SX SE V6

    UCP's most hardcore S12 fan!

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows
    Guns are never a good thing to have in the house. i think that if the police were actually doing their job and using the money they get from funding to get off their butts and actually stop crime places like America would be a whole lot safer. In Australia a person being shot is cause for headline news, from what i've heard it's a near everyday occurance in some American towns and cities.

    I am not denying your right to freedom of protecting property, but if the governments and police were actually doing their job, you'd have nothing to worry about.........
    Guns in the hands of responsible people don't cause problems. It's the idiots who keep loaded guns in their house a think that their kids won't find them that are the problem. I have been shooting guns since I was probably 11 or 12 years old, I have never shot anybody, or used a gun improperly. That's because I have common sense and was taught how to use a gun the right way. Guns aren't bad, it's the drug dealers, lunatics, and people with no common sense that responsible for people getting shot.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    Since the British people were disarmed, violent crime has increased dramatically, and you are now six times more likely to be mugged on the streets of London than you are on the streets of New York.
    Wtf has guns got to do with the rate of violent crime?
    The two aren't related at all.
    Violent crime would have gone up regardless of whether hand guns had been made illeagal or not.

    If hand guns hadn't been made illeagal, it could be argued that more of these violent crimes could have involved a firearm, resulting in fatal shootings, rather than a few nights in hospital, and some stitches.

    The reason that violent crime has gone up is mostly due to bad policing, and the fact that criminals seem to get let off with a light sentence when they are arrested, then go and reoffend when they are released.

    And you haven't touched upon why America has so many more gun related deaths compared to other Western countries, however I think it may be to do with this...

    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    ...you are perfectly justified in shooting them, and I would do so in a blink to prevent even the possibility of myself or my family being injured, killed, assaulted, etc.
    ... opinion regarding guns and their use

    I am not having a go at you personally, as I have heard the same comments many times before, but I think there must be something seriously wrong with society, where otherwise completely normal and rational people say that they are perfectly willing to shoot and kill someone if they broke into their home.

    If someone gave me the right to carry a gun around here, and I was threatened by someone, even then I doubt I could bring myself to shoot them.

    Anyway, the likelyhood of your scenario actually happening, unless you live in a really bad area, is going to be very small. How many people do you know that have had a psycho break into their home and threaten them?
    Thanks for all the fish

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    420
    It does happen, and it only takes one time. I consider it part of my responsibility as a husband to be prepared to defend my family from harm. If forced to choose between the life of a person who has willingly decided to violate my home, and the life of a loved one, the criminal loses, sorry.

    Wtf has guns got to do with the rate of violent crime?
    Quite a bit, actually. As I said, in states which allow concealed carry by citizens, the overall rate of violent crime has measurably decreased. If you are a criminal on the streets of London, armed with a gun, knife, bat, whatever, you can be secure in the knowledge that whatever victim you choose will be unarmed and defenseless against your attack. A criminal here cannot know whether or not his intended victim will turn out to be armed. Understandably, a large percentage of concealed-carry permit holders are women, which I support wholeheartedly. Every dead rapist benefits society.

    That being said, as I mentioned above, even people who legally carry firearms very rarely kill anyone. The vast majority of incidents involve no shots fired, and even if shots are fired, most people don't appreciate what a poor killing machine a pistol really is. Handgun bullets are for the most part small, and their powder charges are weak. A person shot with one has a relatively low chance of actually dying, compared to a person shot with a rifle or shotgun. Even being stabbed with a large knife usually does more damage than being shot with a pistol, due to the very small mass of handgun bullets. Modern self-defense rounds that are designed to prevent ricochets and over-penetration are even less lethal.

    But that's really beside the point. If you fire a weapon at an attacker, there is a chance you will kill them. However I find it difficult to believe any rational person would place more value on the life of a criminal than on the lives of their loved ones.
    "The good news is, not one of the 50 states has the death penalty for speeding....although I'm not too sure about Ohio."

    Sesquipedalian -- a really cool word. It means long-winded, polysyllabic, or verbose. See the word describes itself...isn't that neat?

    1988 Nissan 200SX SE V6

    UCP's most hardcore S12 fan!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks
    Wtf has guns got to do with the rate of violent crime?
    The two aren't related at all.
    Violent crime would have gone up regardless of whether hand guns had been made illeagal or not.

    If hand guns hadn't been made illeagal, it could be argued that more of these violent crimes could have involved a firearm, resulting in fatal shootings, rather than a few nights in hospital, and some stitches.

    The reason that violent crime has gone up is mostly due to bad policing, and the fact that criminals seem to get let off with a light sentence when they are arrested, then go and reoffend when they are released.

    And you haven't touched upon why America has so many more gun related deaths compared to other Western countries, however I think it may be to do with this...



    ... opinion regarding guns and their use

    I am not having a go at you personally, as I have heard the same comments many times before, but I think there must be something seriously wrong with society, where otherwise completely normal and rational people say that they are perfectly willing to shoot and kill someone if they broke into their home.

    If someone gave me the right to carry a gun around here, and I was threatened by someone, even then I doubt I could bring myself to shoot them.

    Anyway, the likelyhood of your scenario actually happening, unless you live in a really bad area, is going to be very small. How many people do you know that have had a psycho break into their home and threaten them?
    Somebody once tried to break into my house but they must have been scared off before they got in (they opened a window and took the screen out), if they would have got in and tried anything their chances of getting shot would have been high. I agree that your chances of being involved in a situation requiring you to shoot somebody is small but things do happen. I live in a relatively small town with not much crime but some guy stabbed some chick to death and tried to stab her boyfriend to death at a bar in my town. It happened about a half mile from my house and 200 yards from the city police station. Stuff does happen. If you are responsible and want to carry a gun for protection where legal then it would'nt be stupid to do so.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    2,454
    someone once tried to kill me

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Yes s*it happens, it has happened to me, nothing serious though.

    I did say earlier, I don't think it is the guns that are the problem, it is the attitude.

    I have read, and heard many, many comments by Americans defending their right to bear arms, and all the time they seem quite at ease to discuss killing someone who might do them harm.

    The large majority of people I know, and have met over the years here wouldn't think it so easy to kill.

    In America, in general, it seems killing is be treated as an inevitable part of life, like burning your toast, it happens sometimes.
    Thanks for all the fish

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,336
    In America, in general, it seems killing is be treated as an inevitable part of life, like burning your toast, it happens sometimes.
    lmao! it is true, but as it was said the presence of the gun could solve the situation without a shot fired. if someones in my house im not going to barge in guns a blazing, im going to anounch the presence of my gun, tell them to get the hell down and call the police, not many people are going to argue with a gun pointed at their head unless they have a death wish if they rush me ill shoot, im not going to shoot to kill but the reality is it might happen they shouldnt have been in my house in the first place...
    UCP's Most Hardcore Burro!

    Being human explains everything but excuses nothing

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    420
    What some of you refer to as a cavalier attitude toward killing that you perceive in the United States is in fact not that at all. No sane person can have a casual attitude toward the idea of killing another person. Even our police officers who are forced to kill someone in the line of duty often require much counseling afterward.

    The attitude that you mistake for aggression is actually a very healthy respect for law, order, and an inherent respect that we have for our law-abiding friends and neighbors. This attitude inevitably leads to a disdain for criminals who choose to flaunt our laws and rules, and choose to victimize innocent people who are just trying to live their lives. It's also related to the emphasis on individual freedom, and therefore individual responsibility, which is prevalent in traditional American society. This belief holds that a person must be responsible for the consequence of their decisions and actions. A criminal killed while attempting to commit a crime may be a tragedy, but this belief in individual accountability leads to the belief that the criminal was responsible for deciding to commit that crime, and forfeited his right to live in peace when he attempted to infringe on the rights of innocent people to live in peace. He essentially took his life in his hands, took his chances, and lost.
    "The good news is, not one of the 50 states has the death penalty for speeding....although I'm not too sure about Ohio."

    Sesquipedalian -- a really cool word. It means long-winded, polysyllabic, or verbose. See the word describes itself...isn't that neat?

    1988 Nissan 200SX SE V6

    UCP's most hardcore S12 fan!

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    1,584
    i apologise for the late reply, i went away for a couple of days and had no intent to use the internet !!
    let's go straight to business.


    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    C'mon now Misho. For your argument to be valid you would have to believe that the insurgents in Iraq believe that the U.S. soldiers intend to rob their houses and kill their families.
    yes, that is what these so-called insurgents beleive. that these US soldiers are pretty much there to occupy their land and benefit from the country's natural resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    I think the U.S. forces have gone to great lengths to make it clear that is not their intent. And if they were merely "defending their homes" they would not be setting bombs off at police stations and recruiting centers and killing their own countrymen.
    they might have gone to great lengths to prove that this is not their intent, but does that mean we have to beleive them ? usually when someone does something wrong, they go to great lengths and prove otherwise. i dont see ur point about how by claiming that this is not their intent, means that this is really not their intent. do u beleive anything the government says ?
    as for killing their countrymen, they beleive that these citizens helping the occupying forces are traitors, and deserve the same fate as the occupiers.
    what i would like to point however is that not all these actions being taken against the occupying forces could be labelled as "defending the land". many of them are also terrorist activities carried out by minorities seeking power, as Crisis mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by cls12vg30
    As for the U.S. disarming people I'm not sure who you mean.
    i mean pretty much any country the US isnt afraid of going into war against.
    i am not talking about individuals, i am talking about governments.
    ----R.I.P----
    "Misho Ratio"
    2003 - 2004

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Halifax, Canada
    Posts
    1,584
    Quote Originally Posted by megotmea7
    i dont think americans would resort to killing their own people to get 2 enemy soldiers or killing civilians period...
    what is the basis of this statement ? ur being sentimental i think.

    Quote Originally Posted by megotmea7
    what better way to protect america and its interests than to disarm any nation that isnt on board with its cause or is a potential threat.
    NO COMMENT !!

    Quote Originally Posted by megotmea7
    what about a nation with the ability to produce NBC weapons, a history of tyrany and slaughtering their own people, and refusing to submit to inspections?
    what about a country with a history of dropping nuclear bombs over civilians ??
    history is a tricky subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by megotmea7
    if a police officer tries to search a person who has a violent history and is known to carry a firearm but they resist he's going to take them down no questions asked.
    maybe. but what happens after the officer searches the suspect and finds no weapons with him ?

    Quote Originally Posted by megotmea7
    its up to you to decided if what was done was the right or wrong thing. but that is a topic for another thread and were getting off the matter at hand...
    it was partially right, but also partially wrong !
    i dont see why this is off-topic really ! it all started with Rooney's thoughts.
    ----R.I.P----
    "Misho Ratio"
    2003 - 2004

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    6,153
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrari Tifosi
    Please offer statistics or some proof to back this statement, please.
    Do you think the Brady laws are successful in keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people. I would consider anyone willing to kill someone with a guns , or any other way, to be of questionable mental stability.
    "A string is approximately nine long."
    Egg Nogg 02-04-2005, 05:07 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •