Why do we accept crime?

[ParanoiA]

But do you agree that such an interpretation of existing legislation would be justified? I agree wholeheartedly that unnecessary and redundant laws should be avoided, but my point was more that, one way or another, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the debate should focus on where and how, not whether.

 

Actually, yes I do agree. In fact, your reference to child endangerment sounded just fine to me. I don't have a lot of sympathy for reckless gun owners - just defensive of responsible gun owners.

 

What I worry about is this: I leave my gun cabinet unlocked at night time, with the door open a slither so I can get to it quickly and quietly. In fact, I put my keys inside it so there's no way I'll forget to lock it back up in the morning. I've been doing this for years. What about if one of my kids gets a wild hair and decides to check out dad's gun in the middle of the night? Keep in mind, they've both received the speech on numerous occassions and they know how I am about gun safety, so this is highly unlikely - but still possible.

 

A gun control advocate would declare me irresponsible and criminal and push for my incarceration for life. A level headed person might see the sense in keeping the firearms accessible at night, in the privacy of the parent's room. Which one is going to judge me?

 

I like holding people responsible for being irresponsible, but I get squeamish about scenarios that aren't cut and dry.

[Royston]

My favorite is the fingerprint model. Supposedly, you can program it for various users.

 

Yeah I've heard of that, it's pretty neat.

 

Maybe it's because I'm from the UK, but I've never understood the 'criminals will have guns, so should the general public.' Wouldn't it be better if an intruder was incapacitated by a weapon, that was as effective as a gun i.e as fast as shooting a bullet, but didn't kill (as already mentioned). It would have to seriously incapacitate the intruder, so they couldn't move, as far as they couldn't pull a trigger, but I don't think killing is a decision anyone should need to take. Obviously criminals will always be able to get firearms, (whatever source that may be) but is it really sensible to have their blood on your hands, just for breaking and entering. You have to think of the person doing the shooting, even if it is a, 'either them or me' situation.

 

I certainly couldn't cope with the fact I took a life, whatever the circumstances.

[ParanoiA]

Obviously criminals will always be able to get firearms' date=' (whatever source that may be) but is it really sensible to have their blood on your hands, just for breaking and entering. [b']You have to think of the person doing the shooting, even if it is a, 'either them or me' situation[/b].

 

I certainly couldn't cope with the fact I took a life, whatever the circumstances

 

No. Absolutely not. That's ridiculous. I'm not going to think of them a goddamn bit. They created the situation. They created the "them or me" dilema. You don't get second chances in life Snail. This is not the time to show them consideration. It's noble on film, it's great for comic book heros but it results in dead home owners in real life.

 

I'm sorry if a 17 year old is dead in my living room and all he wanted was a DVD player to pawn for crack. He looks the same as the 17 year old that wanted to kill my whole family to live out his Xbox Home Invasion fantasy game in real life.

 

Killing is not required by anyone. I don't know anyone that wouldn't support non-lethal weaponry. I just don't know anyone that would use it. But it's a cool idea, if it will work.

[jlebaron13]

We could have more gun freedom and less gun danger simultaneously, and all it would take would be for somebody to blow up NRA headquarters...

 

Blow up the NRA headquarters? Your true nature comes out, and the left is always claiming to be the nonviolent ones.

[Sisyphus]

Blow up the NRA headquarters? Your true nature comes out, and the left is always claiming to be the nonviolent ones.

 

At least I have a sense of irony.

[Dak]

See what I mean? I'm talking about having my gun in my house. If I'm single, living alone, then there should be no expectation put on me about where my gun is at. I can have it on my coffee table watching southpark. That is where I see legislation stepping in and telling me I have to further secure my weapon. That I'm being "irresponsible" by leaving it out - even though no one is in the house but me - and punishing me if it was stolen.

 

yeah, but, that last bit pretty much acknowledges the possibility that, even if it's in your house, it can get stolen. the argument is that people should be required to make sure that their guns can't be stolen and used to kill someone.

 

I dont really care if it's on your coffy table whilst you're watching southpark, because it's attended. what concerns me is when it's unattended, and thus potentially stealable.

 

im thinking of something like they have in germany for hunting rifles: you can own them, use them, etc, but you need a licence, training, and to lock them up in a hefty metal gun-case when not in use.

 

This is the kind of thing the NRA fights with, and I hope they continue to do it. Gun control advocates see gun owners as criminals, idiots - hick cowboys with beer cans to shoot and minorites to intimidate. They're more judgemental than Jerry Fallwell.

 

you gotta remember tho that several gun owners are criminals or idiots.

 

eg, i bet that several, maybe even most, gun owners who'd be prepared to shoot at an intruder haven't checked which walls in their house are flywalls, the thickness of the floors, and the penetration power of their firearm, so that they know which walls/floors the bullet will go through (and potentially kill someone on the other side), and so don't know which area's in their house are safe to shoot in, or maybe buy a weeker gun that won't penetrate the walls. or give their kids safety lectures. or lock them up whilst out of the house. this is why you have to legislate safety stuff with guns.

 

I'm actually excited and dissappointed on this front. I'm excited about the possibilities and the consequence of solving alot of our gun accident issues - not to mention law enforcement defense as well. But I'm dissappointed because it should already be out and about and practical to buy and perhaps even require their use in new firearms.

 

there are some much, much lower-tech things that, imo, should be a legal requirement for guns, but which aren't. a double-safety, with a conventional safety switch and also a glock-like double-trigger saftey-thing would make guns safer without impeding their function, and even something as simple as those little indicators that tell you if a bullet is chambered could lower accidental gun-deaths. but imposing laws like that is hard in america...

 

My favorite is the fingerprint model. Supposedly, you can program it for various users.

 

yeah, you can 'register' the whole family for it, if they'll spend some time down the range so the gun can get familiar with them.

 

What I worry about is this: I leave my gun cabinet unlocked at night time, with the door open a slither so I can get to it quickly and quietly.

 

see now, a theif, seeing your unlocked gun cabinet, will think:

 

a/ 'uh-oh, he's armed', and

b/ 'whoo-hoo, free guns!'

 

he'll take your gun from the cabinate... when you're asleep, the cabinate should be locked

 

as a compromise: something simple like a special combination-holster screwed to your bed/bedside table, where you have to punch in a pin-number to release the gun, would make is both secure and quickly accessable. a theif might be able to sneak into your room without waking you, but they couldn't break off the holster without waking you. if you leave the house, you could either take the gun with you or transfer it to a hefty metal case to make it harder to steal.

 

course, non-lethal or biometric guns would remove the neccesity to do the above.

 

I'm sorry if a 17 year old is dead in my living room and all he wanted was a DVD player to pawn for crack. He looks the same as the 17 year old that wanted to kill my whole family to live out his Xbox Home Invasion fantasy game in real life.

 

theft isn't punishable by death by law, and the person requires a fair trial, because, yes, even something as seemingly unjustifyable as being in someonelses house in the middle of the night requires an initial presumption of innocence.

 

if people are afforded trial in this situation, and not punished by death if found guilty, i dont see why civilians should be able to summararily execute them on sight. incapasitate, sure, but kill? no. so:

 

Killing is not required by anyone. I don't know anyone that wouldn't support non-lethal weaponry. I just don't know anyone that would use it. But it's a cool idea, if it will work.

 

this is what laws are for. just make it so that everyone is required to use a non-lethal weapon -- stun gun, rubber-bullet shotgun, pepper-spray, whatever -- and the situation becomes a whole-lot better imo.

 

anyhoo, gun ownership isn't the only way of lowering crime...

[Saryctos]

anyhoo, gun ownership isn't the only way of lowering crime...

 

But you do agree that it does lower it to a degree.

[ParanoiA]

theft isn't punishable by death by law, and the person requires a fair trial, because, yes, even something as seemingly unjustifyable as being in someonelses house in the middle of the night requires an initial presumption of innocence.

 

all I can say is...wow....

 

yeah, we're so far apart I can't imagine the sense in continuing any further...

[Haezed]

What many on the left don't understand is that many Americans sincerely believe this is an issue of freedom. They feel empowered against their government, not just against random intruders, by having weaponry.

 

I say this as a non-gun owner but an armed citizenry is a safeguard against sliding into despotism. I'm not saying it is an effective or complete safeguard but it is a type of safeguard. Imagine a European Jewish population in the 1930s that was armed to the teeth. Hitler's first act would have been to disarm them before acting further.

[Sisyphus]

all I can say is...wow....

 

yeah, we're so far apart I can't imagine the sense in continuing any further...

 

You know, I agree with you in principle. You're certainly within your rights to do anything you need to do to defend yourself or your family from an intruder, and that's an important right. And sometimes, sure, you do what you have to do.

 

In practice, though, it's easier to see other points of view. Last year some friends of mine had their apartment broken into two days in a row, with minor things stolen. For the next few days, we took turns staying up and keeping watch, in case the thief returned. Three days later he did, and we surprised him and stunned him with a maglite to the head and pinned him down until the police arrived. We could have beat him to death and been within our rights (as is, he was bleeding everywhere and probably had a concussion), but I would have always thought of myself as a murderer from then on if we had. I (contrary to what I would have expected beforehand) felt nothing but pity at the time or any time afterwards. What kind of a person, in a real life situation, wouldn't endure a little extra danger to avoid taking a life? Especially if you don't even know what that person's intentions are?

 

Now I know you don't always have that opportunity. He was alone and clearly not too bright and all he had was a knife, and we were three 21-year-olds who were ready for him. I get it. I just don't see why it has to be such an alien concept.

[Dak]

all I can say is...wow....

 

yeah, we're so far apart I can't imagine the sense in continuing any further...

 

but... but... arguing with people who agree with you is pointless

 

anyhoo, to clarify, note that i specifically wasn't mentioning self-defence... in sysyphus' example, i'd have been waiting with a baseball bat, not a maglite, and probably a knife aswell (or a gun, if in america). if he had a drawn knife i wouldn't have had any qualms about stabbing/shooting him, tho i'd have aimed for the legs if i had that luxury.

 

if the knife was away, i'd have tried to break his shins with the bat. then, admittedly, probaly beaned him in the back of the head whilst on the floor if he reached inside his jacket as if for a gun (in america), or tried to break his arm if he reached inside his jacket as if for a knife (uk). and, it's not as if i haven't taken weapons to confront theives before (never finding one, tho; the closest i got was one who scarpered from my garden when he heard me coming)

 

I'm not suggesting we be nice to theives, nor that we be gentle in defending ourselfes. all im saying is it isn't a 'kill or dont kill' dichotomy. so... if unnessesary for self-defence, why should civillians be allowed to summarily mete out a punishment that isn't even the punishment that's officially handed out for the crime?

 

or, in other words: death is acceptable in self-defence; death is not acceptable as a punishment for tresspass or theft.

[john5746]

What many on the left don't understand is that many Americans sincerely believe this is an issue of freedom. They feel empowered against their government, not just against random intruders, by having weaponry.

 

I say this as a non-gun owner but an armed citizenry is a safeguard against sliding into despotism. I'm not saying it is an effective or complete safeguard but it is a type of safeguard. Imagine a European Jewish population in the 1930s that was armed to the teeth. Hitler's first act would have been to disarm them before acting further.

 

That's a BS argument. We have a very well equipped army. The only way citizens could reasonably fight it is ... terrorism? If one really believes this, then there should be no restrictions, i.e Bill Gates can buy Tanks, Ships, maybe Nukes.

[ParanoiA]

That's a BS argument. We have a very well equipped army. The only way citizens could reasonably fight it is ... terrorism? If one really believes this, then there should be no restrictions, i.e Bill Gates can buy Tanks, Ships, maybe Nukes.

 

But it is a type of deterent to despotism. Yes we have a formidable army, ( 1 million or so?? ) but consider what it would take to unleash it on more than 300 million americans on their own soil, in the streets, with a decent percentage of them with guns. It's not near the same as taking them unarmed, not by a long shot - particularly since you probably wouldn't have to take them at all.

 

It matters.

 

I'm not suggesting we be nice to theives, nor that we be gentle in defending ourselfes. all im saying is it isn't a 'kill or dont kill' dichotomy. so... if unnessesary for self-defence, why should civillians be allowed to summarily mete out a punishment that isn't even the punishment that's officially handed out for the crime?

 

Whew...you had me worried man. Yeah, waking up to an intruder at 3 am is a self defense moment. I would never kill an intruder who's capacitated. I'm just not too concerned with how they get capacitated. And I don't agree in citizens using lethal weapons on anyone for any reason other than self defense. If you're in your house and someone is stealing your car, then I don't think you have a right to shoot them. Let the cops do it...

 

What kind of a person, in a real life situation, wouldn't endure a little extra danger to avoid taking a life? Especially if you don't even know what that person's intentions are?

 

That's a very decent question to ask. As long as we're not introducing legislation. I don't think anyone should be required to consider the well being of an intruder like that. If he breaks in while they're there, they should be within their rights to shoot him for fear of their own life - like you and I both have said, we don't know what their intentions are.

 

But as a human decency question, sure I completely agree. I totally agree with your situation. That was the practical thing to do. But you clearly had a great advantage, and you were prepared to take it further if you needed to. What if he was breaking into a young single mom's apartment - fight or flight kicking into a chick with a gun and children to defend - can you really blame her if she ends up killing the guy?

[Dak]

Whew...you had me worried man. Yeah, waking up to an intruder at 3 am is a self defense moment. I would never kill an intruder who's capacitated. I'm just not too concerned with how they get capacitated. And I don't agree in citizens using lethal weapons on anyone for any reason other than self defense. If you're in your house and someone is stealing your car, then I don't think you have a right to shoot them. Let the cops do it...

 

yeah, but, if someone breaks into your house i think it's reasonable to assume that they're trying to rob you, not kill you.

 

anyway, if you did away with guns and replaced them with an effective non-lethal weapon, like mace/stun-guns/whatever, you could just shoot the intruder and all the problems would go away. you can defend yourself right off the bat, in a way thats probably ethically superior to both guns and baseball bats, no-one dies, and theres no meting out of disproportionate punishment by civvies. not to mention, of course, that kids playing with them/spouse returning earlyer than expected, etc, would no longer result in yet another stupid death.

[Haezed]

But it is a type of deterent to despotism. Yes we have a formidable army, ( 1 million or so?? ) but consider what it would take to unleash it on more than 300 million americans on their own soil, in the streets, with a decent percentage of them with guns. It's not near the same as taking them unarmed, not by a long shot - particularly since you probably wouldn't have to take them at all.

 

It matters.

 

 

You beat me to the punch with this post. Our system has many checks against tyranny many of which are much more important than an armed citizenry. Our system has multiple protections of liberty one of which is the right to bear arms.

 

No, I wouldn't give nukes to citizens, or tanks or ground to air missles. Competing rights must often be balanced against one another.

 

When I see a bumper sticker that says "I'll give up my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers from the barrel," I see a guy expressing his individuality in a rather inarticulate manner and with some degree of defiance against the government.

[Saryctos]

yeah, but, if someone breaks into your house i think it's reasonable to assume that they're trying to rob you, not kill you.

True in most cases, but if some one is hopped up on drugs, what's stopping them from killing you to protect them from witnesses? Not everyone has crime assesment skills, not everyone can read a complete stranger and determine if they're crazy, or just looking for some cash.

 

If you go downstairs with mace or a stun gun, and it's a guy goosed up on PCP, what if it doesn't take him down? well now he's angry and might go after your kids once he's done with you. May very well not be the case, especially in most neighborhoods*. However, as a parent, the safety of your children may very well push any concern for another person, led alone a criminal completely off the table at a moments notice.

 

I especially don't like the idea of killing anyone, it's probably the only actual moral dilema I think about. But not everyone is like me, and I'm not going to make it harder for someone else to defend themselves simply because of my morals.

 

A gun is more than just a killing device, it's a delivery system. The bullets do the killing, I'm sure you can find non-lethal bullets out there. This not only gives you the deterance of a fire-arm, but the ability of being able to actually use it on someone. And there is no way some one is going to be able to know if your rounds are real or not. By the time they figure it out, they'll be writhing* on the floor in pain, or passed out.

 

Some people just have different views on how they want to protect themselves. And I just think it makes much more sense that a criminal be afraid of death moreso than me sleeping in my bed without the availability to purchase something that makes me feel safe.