Age Old Question

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

So Zona which line do you prefer to use when people have broken into your house or are assaulting you or your family?
Make sure you tell them politely. You wouldn't want to get life for defending yourself from intruding thugs like in the "safe haven" called England?

I live my life without even worrying about it. What are the chances that someone will break into your home? What are the chances that they will break into your home while someone is home? What are the chances that they will continue trying to break into your home once they realize you are home? What are the chances that they will be armed when they try to break into your home? What are the chances that someone armed breaking into your home wants anything more than money?

Some people are overly paranoid about this. You'd be more reasonable if you said. "I don't ever drive a car because someone my crash into me and kill me!"

You know what my plan is if someone breaks into my house? I keep my car keys on the nightstand next to the bed at night. If I hear someone breaking in, I click the car alarm panic button. I speak from experience, that loud sucker will wake up everyone in the neighborhood.

[Who2Dey]

Originally Posted by silenetwolf

If guns are outlawed how do law abiding citizens protect themselves from criminals?

This is really becoming a hot topic and it seems that for some reason, the number of shooting incidences are rising.

I'll shoot them with my gun that I'm not supposed to have.

[silenetwolf]

Here is what I am talking about. More double talk. Limiting magazines too 10 rounds? It only takes one round to kill a person. In a school that could still lead to 10 fatalities.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/w...190730430.html

I am definitely not for banning weapons, I own a few guns myself. Like I said before, they need to look at the social aspect instead and put tighter regulations on those that wish to own fire arms. A good example is that kid who shot his mother and then went to the school and shot more people. She knew her son had problems, she should have gotten rid of those weapons or at the very least lock the weapons up and lock the ammunition up in a different location. However, let's not consider this kid had mental problems and his mother did not properly address them, let's just start all this banter again about how weapons are the problem. That is BS imo.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I live my life without even worrying about it. What are the chances that someone will break into your home? What are the chances that they will break into your home while someone is home? What are the chances that they will continue trying to break into your home once they realize you are home? What are the chances that they will be armed when they try to break into your home? What are the chances that someone armed breaking into your home wants anything more than money?

Some people are overly paranoid about this. You'd be more reasonable if you said. "I don't ever drive a car because someone my crash into me and kill me!"

You know what my plan is if someone breaks into my house? I keep my car keys on the nightstand next to the bed at night. If I hear someone breaking in, I click the car alarm panic button. I speak from experience, that loud sucker will wake up everyone in the neighborhood.

I'd say that I wear a seatbelt when I ride in a car because I may get into a crash.
Does that make me overly paranoid?
You have locks on your house and I'm sure you don't just go to sleep with the door unlocked......Is this being overly paranoid

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

I'd say that I wear a seatbelt when I ride in a car because I may get into a crash.
Does that make me overly paranoid?
You have locks on your house and I'm sure you don't just go to sleep with the door unlocked......Is this being overly paranoid

Seat belts are a law. You have to wear them.

Are the locks on your door to keep someone out you don't want in? Or are they because you think some mad maniac is coming to get you?

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

If someone is assaulting you or your family in England, you are allowed to fight back.

Please don't misrepresent the laws.

Reading the dialog between the 2 of you after this post makes me wonder if you understand the laws.

The laws in the US vary by state. Some states only have the vague qualification any type of threat beyond the entry, ie stealing stuff, for intentional deadly force. Some states the occupant must reasonably believe there is bodily threat for intentional deadly force. Some states the threat must be for their life to just take the intruder out, intentionally. Some states you can fire upon the person but not with intent to kill, however if they die it's still excusable. Read up on Castle doctrine if you don't believe me.

To my understanding the biggest difference between most states here and England is mandatory criminal trial and the possibility of civil. England, if you kill someone illegally enters your home and you kill them, a trial will definitely happen to determine if deadly force was warranted, and civil only comes into play after that decision is made. In most states, the DA determines if a trial is necessary and usually will decide it isn't and in some states the homeowner is protected from civil.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

What that guy is doing is advertising and essentially advocating a violent occurrence to happen at his neighbor’s house simply because they have a difference of opinion...the fact that you are even rationalizing it helps me understand you a bit more.

The idiots in your video are no better than the guy in my picture...I can see that you can't. My previous statement applies.

P.S. One video is not proof of "exponential" numbers of people...try grounding some of this in reality instead of exaggerating everything in hopes your point will be bolstered by it.

Are you saying by people knowing his neighbor doesn't have a gun that ADVOCATES a violent intrusion?

Imagine what would happen if criminals knew all law abiding citizens didn't have a firearm.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I live my life without even worrying about it. What are the chances that someone will break into your home? What are the chances that they will break into your home while someone is home? What are the chances that they will continue trying to break into your home once they realize you are home? What are the chances that they will be armed when they try to break into your home? What are the chances that someone armed breaking into your home wants anything more than money?

Some people are overly paranoid about this. You'd be more reasonable if you said. "I don't ever drive a car because someone my crash into me and kill me!"

You know what my plan is if someone breaks into my house? I keep my car keys on the nightstand next to the bed at night. If I hear someone breaking in, I click the car alarm panic button. I speak from experience, that loud sucker will wake up everyone in the neighborhood.

Yeah what are the chances. I used to work with a woman who owned a gun. When she first moved out her parents house her father insisted she own and handgun and be capable of using it. She even objected telling him she didn't think she would ever be in a situation where it would be necessary.

2 months after moving in a man did break in while she was getting ready for bed. She grabbed her weapon and went into the room where she heard the noise. A man was walking through the room, stopped and saw her with the handgun pointed at him, and promptly ran out the back door.

There is no telling what would have occurred if she didn't have that weapon.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Are you saying by people knowing his neighbor doesn't have a gun that ADVOCATES a violent intrusion?

Imagine what would happen if criminals knew all law abiding citizens didn't have a firearm.

Man...try reading a bit better...seriously, your comprehension of what I have said throughout this thread is silly at best.

[pennsyltuckian]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Man...try reading a bit better...seriously, your comprehension of what I have said throughout this thread is silly at best.

I understand fully what you have said THROUGHOUT the thread and to some extent agree. I was just focusing in on this one piece which is not relevant to how extremist have extreme disdain for the other side.

It is relevant to the topic of banning guns, which is the topic of the thread. Let's visit that again

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

What that guy is doing is advertising and essentially advocating a violent occurrence to happen at his neighbor’s house...

How is he advocating it? Are you saying the simple fact that people would know his neighbor doesn't have a weapon increases the chances of something bad happening to him?

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Just a little fact since the sunsetting of the original AWB
Direct your attention to the chart at the bottom
From FBI.GOV
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

So everyone is just killing everyone?

http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/1765

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...963761,00.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murd...ally-and-state
Refer to the chart at the bottom of the page.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...ate-death-rate

[Benton]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

and what happened to the jews after?????????????????????????

The same thing as what the fed and states did after restricting gun ownership for convicted felons, the mentally ill, illegal and legal immigrants, etc.



I'm in favor of keeping lawmakers in check, and I'm against much gun regulation, but insinuating this is part of a federal plan to round up people for extermination is a little silly.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Reading the dialog between the 2 of you after this post makes me wonder if you understand the laws.

The laws in the US vary by state. Some states only have the vague qualification any type of threat beyond the entry, ie stealing stuff, for intentional deadly force. Some states the occupant must reasonably believe there is bodily threat for intentional deadly force. Some states the threat must be for their life to just take the intruder out, intentionally. Some states you can fire upon the person but not with intent to kill, however if they die it's still excusable. Read up on Castle doctrine if you don't believe me.

To my understanding the biggest difference between most states here and England is mandatory criminal trial and the possibility of civil. England, if you kill someone illegally enters your home and you kill them, a trial will definitely happen to determine if deadly force was warranted, and civil only comes into play after that decision is made. In most states, the DA determines if a trial is necessary and usually will decide it isn't and in some states the homeowner is protected from civil.

No, I understand that. But by law you are allowed to use reasonable force in England. The question of what is reasonable is determined by trial. That does not refute what I was saying. The laws are what they are.

[BengalRugby]

I think this thread has missed the entire point of the question that was brought up, and maybe I am, too.

I don't think it's about banning guns all-together, but it's just more about banning automatic weapons like machine guns and such, so, unless your grandma is packing an AK47 in her closet, I don't think that it would really matter to her.


Machine guns and fully automatic weapons are already illegal.

Fully automatic guns fire continuously as you hold down the trigger. They want to ban semi-automatic weapons as well, which fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. I agree the standard citizen shouldn't have fully automatic weapons, nor should police, as they are wildly inaccurate and pose a danger to the rest of the population for that reason.

Along with, they are seeking to restrict magazine capacity to 10. This is an issue, as trained police officers only have a hit percentage of around 35% when using their guns in actual events in the field. Thus, if confronted in a situation where multiple people break into a home, less collected/skilled citizens might not have enough ammo capacity to defend themselves. While I do not worry about this myself, nor do I live in an area where I need a gun for self defense, I don't even lock my doors and sometimes leave my keys in my car's egnition, I can understand why others might have the need for an extended magazine.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Seat belts are a law. You have to wear them.

Are the locks on your door to keep someone out you don't want in? Or are they because you think some mad maniac is coming to get you?

In my state of KY there is no law that someone has to wear a helmet when riding a Motorcycle yet I still wear one when I ride. It makes me too nervous to ride without one, especially after I have laid my old bike down WITHOUT one on. So am I just extremely paranoid? Or just taking action to keep myself safe against something that may happen?

Yes the locks are on your doors to keep people out you don't want in weather they be a random person or thugs looking for trouble.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by Benton

The same thing as what the fed and states did after restricting gun ownership for convicted felons, the mentally ill, illegal and legal immigrants, etc.



I'm in favor of keeping lawmakers in check, and I'm against much gun regulation, but insinuating this is part of a federal plan to round up people for extermination is a little silly.

Are you not aware of the part in the NDAA Bill where it states that the government can lock people up in RE-EDUCATION CAMPS(Nazi terminology) and use things such as blasting pro government messages over loud speakers all day.
You will have to give me a bit to find the actual name of this type of program.

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Here is some more info on re education camps and the ACTUAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

http://www.infowars.com/army-admits-...ublic-release/

http://rt.com/usa/news/army-manual-camps-citizens-593/

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd534.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-...citizens/30703

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Didn't click on the second link, the description of a 911 call made me think it was audio, which does me no good.

The caliber does mean a good deal. While a well aimed.22 LR can be as deadly as a .45 ACP, to deny the difference in wounds caused is laughable.

5 times in the face and neck? They must have been grazes, only thing I can think of. That's why you shoot center mass. Sounds like someone should have known how to handle their firearm better. Given her difficulty aiming, would 5 more shots made a difference? 10? Hard to say.

This is a very rare instance. It is the exception rather than the rule. That's the problem with building an argument on this.

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

I think this thread has missed the entire point of the question that was brought up, and maybe I am, too.

I don't think it's about banning guns all-together, but it's just more about banning automatic weapons like machine guns and such, so, unless your grandma is packing an AK47 in her closet, I don't think that it would really matter to her.


Machine guns and fully automatic weapons are already illegal.

Fully automatic guns fire continuously as you hold down the trigger. They want to ban semi-automatic weapons as well, which fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. I agree the standard citizen shouldn't have fully automatic weapons, nor should police, as they are wildly inaccurate and pose a danger to the rest of the population for that reason.

Along with, they are seeking to restrict magazine capacity to 10. This is an issue, as trained police officers only have a hit percentage of around 35% when using their guns in actual events in the field. Thus, if confronted in a situation where multiple people break into a home, less collected/skilled citizens might not have enough ammo capacity to defend themselves. While I do not worry about this myself, nor do I live in an area where I need a gun for self defense, I don't even lock my doors and sometimes leave my keys in my car's egnition, I can understand why others might have the need for an extended magazine.

I think BR just backed my point with good facts.
If a trained police officer only has a 35% hit percentage what do you think a scared mother hiding in a closet trying to keep her kids safe is going to be able to do?
And just give me a minute with trusty GOOGLE SEARCH and I will show you how "RARE" this instance actually is.

[VCU Rams]

http://kottke.org/12/12/chris-rock-w...bullet-control

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

Here's a little something on the recent mass shooting in Oregon.
It appears that the gunman turned the gun on himself when he seen a ARMED CITIZEN setting up for a shot on him.
FOX NEWS LINK
http://nation.foxnews.com/mall-shoot...-mall-shooting

http://www.examiner.com/article/medi...-armed-citizen

[ICKYSHUFFLE]

More good info on guns stopping crime
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_c..._by_gun_owners

[silenetwolf]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

I think this thread has missed the entire point of the question that was brought up, and maybe I am, too.

I don't think it's about banning guns all-together, but it's just more about banning automatic weapons like machine guns and such, so, unless your grandma is packing an AK47 in her closet, I don't think that it would really matter to her.


Machine guns and fully automatic weapons are already illegal.

Fully automatic guns fire continuously as you hold down the trigger. They want to ban semi-automatic weapons as well, which fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger. I agree the standard citizen shouldn't have fully automatic weapons, nor should police, as they are wildly inaccurate and pose a danger to the rest of the population for that reason.

Along with, they are seeking to restrict magazine capacity to 10. This is an issue, as trained police officers only have a hit percentage of around 35% when using their guns in actual events in the field. Thus, if confronted in a situation where multiple people break into a home, less collected/skilled citizens might not have enough ammo capacity to defend themselves. While I do not worry about this myself, nor do I live in an area where I need a gun for self defense, I don't even lock my doors and sometimes leave my keys in my car's egnition, I can understand why others might have the need for an extended magazine.

You are partly right in what this thread is about,but as I said before they are totally ignoring the social aspect of this issue. Another thing that is disturbing are the laws. A person can get more time in prison for cheating on their income tax, than they could get for taking another person's life.

They need to tighten the regulations, and change the laws. 1st degree manslaughter, 2nd degree manslaughter and 3rd degree manslaughter. I understand that those laws are for criminals who had no intent on taking another person's life. That makes no sense to me. If there was no intent then why is a victim dead?

[BengalRugby]

You are partly right in what this thread is about,but as I said before they are totally ignoring the social aspect of this issue. Another thing that is disturbing are the laws. A person can get more time in prison for cheating on their income tax, than they could get for taking another person's life.

They need to tighten the regulations, and change the laws. 1st degree manslaughter, 2nd degree manslaughter and 3rd degree manslaughter. I understand that those laws are for criminals who had no intent on taking another person's life. That makes no sense to me. If there was no intent then why is a victim dead?

As for manslaughter laws, I believe they apply when death is not the intent, like someone killed during the commission of a crime, like fleeing from the police. Or in a fight and accidently killing the opposition, read on the "one punch homicide."

But think you know about all that stuff already, as other posters have full knowledge of them too.

As for the first part, that is a problem with the tax code and laws there. If anything, I think non-voilent crimes should have lesser sentences and violent ones higher penalties. But there will always be excepts to the rule, as is the nature or outliers...

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by pennsyltuckian

Yeah what are the chances. I used to work with a woman who owned a gun. When she first moved out her parents house her father insisted she own and handgun and be capable of using it. She even objected telling him she didn't think she would ever be in a situation where it would be necessary.

2 months after moving in a man did break in while she was getting ready for bed. She grabbed her weapon and went into the room where she heard the noise. A man was walking through the room, stopped and saw her with the handgun pointed at him, and promptly ran out the back door.

There is no telling what would have occurred if she didn't have that weapon.

And that's the justification you use for your need for a gun? That sounds like an argument a single female might use. Then again, you should also consider your last sentence: "There is no telling what would have occurred if she didn't have that weapon". There is no telling. But, we are to assume from the story that she would have been attacked, raped and murdered as if that is just the natural conclusion. Sounds like a story kids would tell around the campfire. And we are also supposed to assume that this could happen to us, even though we are not single females. Hence, we need to arm ourselves with automatic weapons with high capacity magazines.

Dude. If you like guns, just say you like guns. Don't peddle fear and paranoia.