|
|
|
|
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:16:15 PM | I was recently in debate on this subject with a retired police officer friend. He said that only about 60% of those who murder someone are brought to justice. He said it's more like 40%, but it all depends on who's stats you use.
Please take a look at the first link below. It will give you an idea of how many murders have been committed in the last 30 years. Using this data would give us a total of 673702 murders.
Using the second link from Dept of Justice website (2004) statistics, tell us that for every 100 persons arrested for violent crimes, only 31 were convicted.
Those stats are freaking scary, especially since in the majority of crimes, no one is ever arrested.
You can extrapolate till you're blue in the face, or use stats from any reliable source-
but the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of criminals/murderers on America's streets.
ANOTHER PRUDENT REASON TO PROTECT YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6792005.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fssc04.txt | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/3/2009 10:16:10 PM | ^Looking at the above, this makes you ask a question. If firearms were made illegal, would this person (the person 'gent is telling us about that is "on the loose") really care? My guess is no.
Besides all of that. Besides the logic in it. If I want to buy a pistol and go to the range and send lead down range because it makes me smile, then I feel I should be allowed to do so as I have been for quite some time. We banned crime and how well did that work out? Honest people don't commit it and yet it still happens. Ban firearms and honest people will be cheated while the criminal element will not be affected much at all. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/4/2009 7:19:10 AM | | ^The thing is that most the people in this thread seem unable to use any "common"sense to figure that out. Look at prohibition. They banned alcohol and the banned caused so many problems that they allower alcohol again. They figured out that criminals will continue to commit crimes regardless of what the law is. I wish our politicians today could figure that out. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/4/2009 9:30:45 AM | Yeah, but swords and giant crossbows are still legal in Britain.  You can walk down the road with a giant crossbow perfectly legally so long as it is in its box.
The way I was taught it (and please do correct me if I'm wrong, I got this from A level Government and Politics, lol), in the US gun ownership is an actual "right", as laid out in a codified, entrenched constitution. In Britain, gun ownership was something you were *allowed* (like driving a car or something), but not an actual right. Emphasis on "were" though, since the Snowdrop Campaign and Tony Blair's "New Labour" promising to ban guns as a way of getting votes. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/4/2009 1:00:34 PM | | You are correct. The Constitution says its a right. In all reality though, its a right for every law abiding citizen regardless of what a piece of paper says. Who's to say that you can't protect yourself with a firearm, hunt, enjoying shooting etc. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/15/2009 8:54:34 PM |
Yeah, but swords and giant crossbows are still legal in Britain. You can walk down the road with a giant crossbow perfectly legally so long as it is in its box.
If you fell safe defending your property and family with such weapons than that is all you need. Assuming that someone who would threaten my home or my life would not be deterred from carrying a firearm because there is a law against it (to which I say "no duh") I would rather have the best chance to match or outmatch an attacker.
Fire arm ownership IS a right in the United States. Until recently anti gun lobbiests were attempting to say that the second ammendment ratified in 1783 was pretaining to the National Guard which was established in 1917. The US Supreme court put an end to that one only recently stating, "The right of the people to have and bear arms shall bot be infringed" did in fact mean the people and not the government... To which I again say, "no duh". | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/15/2009 11:25:50 PM | | your own firearm isn't going to hurt you unless you are being stupid with it. leigh, i highly doubt those three ladies are going to use their guns unless they feel their lives are in immediate danger and have no other option. i myself own several firearms and if neccessary to protect my life or family or friends lifes, i will use it and thats only if i have no other option. I definately feel safer owning them than i would if i didnt. the police can't be everywhere at once ya know. i beleive your fear of guns is largely missed placed. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:51:38 PM |
And again, citing the 2nd Ammendment is argumentative at best, the courts keep backtracking and reversing their position on this. The text is for state militias to prevent federal dictatorship in the event of a malaevolant national leadership (strictly speaking formal state paramilitaries to prevent a monarchy forming) and relates to a specific political period, it is very argumentative to interpret this as personal protection from crime today, no less than representative in the extreme and cannot be clearly demonstrated to be the intention of the document. It is definitely not what the document is discussing, and the argument for it is being representative, many would say completely irrelevant.
Crime is political you say, but no it is about law enforcement. The environment of crime is political.
The courts are most certainly not back tracking... The US Supreme court settled that one once and for all stating firearm ownership was intended by the founding fathers to be a right of private citizens. This should come as no suprise since they just finished fighting a war against a government who's first move was to attempt to disarm the public ("The shot heard around the world" at Lexington was fired to slow the British advance on a rebel [that's us] weapons cache). The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as they best believe those who wrote it would have intended it. This idea that is was to give power to the states to rebel against a strong central government has no foundation. Read the Constitution and you will find in every instance that the authors intended something to be for the states they clearly wrote "The State". But let's humor that arguement anyway. What was a state militia at the time the founding fathers wrote the second ammendment (1783)? It was private civilians. There were no contracts to be signed. One did not swear loyalty to the state they resigned in. They assembled in a disorganised way, leadership went to whoever the most people admired and trusted the most, and the state government had nothing to do with the financing of weapons, equipement, training, or gear of these militias.
As to the interpretation of the document: I could site and take up the next eight pages of this posting with quotes from Benjamin Franklin, Noah Webster, Thomas Jefferson, and so on.... I'll just call it safe to say that to incinuate that these men desired the means of defense and enforcement to be left solely in the hands of federal, state, city, or any government for that matter, is absolutely foolish.
Did they mean to defend against crime? How can you possibly say no? "A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state", could very well be incorporated into crime as well. One simply can't argue that they weren't concerned about the SECURITY of a free state. Would you call the aftermath of hurricane Katrina secure? Or how about the streets of LA during the riots? Many law abiding citizens were simply forced to protect themselves, their loved ones, their neighbors, and their property on thier own. They weren't ordered to do so by the state or city governments and they didn't need to be. This is what our founding fathers called "the militia".
And BTW... I'm from Chicago were firearms were illegal and are still extremely restricted. If you think that makes us a safer city please come visit me... I'd love to drop you off (and I stress drop you off and not go with you) at a few neighborhoods so you can go for a pleasent evening stroll. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/16/2009 7:59:18 PM | One more thing.... As to the events described earlier at schools.... What do you suppose would have happened had the adult students (in the case of the college) or faculty been as heavily armed as the psychos commiting those crimes? What's more do you really believe the psycho's wouldn't have commited them if guns were illegal because they wouldn't want to break the law by having one while they were murdering everyone?
-Just some food for thought
Oh yeah and I know I previously mentioned the revolution.... To all my friends across the pond: You guys know we're completely over that and we love you guys now right? :) | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/16/2009 9:08:16 PM | There have been plenty of instances where teachers/students who had weapons on campus (usually in vehicles) stopped spree's. They just don't get put in the mainstream news for obvious reasons.
Also, there is NOTHING nebulous about the 2nd ammendment. It is cut and dried and oh-so simple. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/17/2009 10:38:57 AM | Let me clarify my post of many months back.
I did not actively go out and purchase a firearm.
My mom gave it to me when my dad died, it was his and she
wasn't comfortable with it being in the house with him gone.
So for me it wasn't an issue of constitutional right, nor
paranoia, nor some sort of womanly macho.
As far as practicing, FL CO, it's been a while, I admit. I have discovered that
I perform well in a crisis situation, but get jello-kneed afterwards.
Hence the puke later sentiment. I value human life and hope that I
am never forced into a situation to value mine over somebody else's.
Aside from weapons handling, the military also taught me how to up my
odds of safety. First lesson was to buddy up. Second lesson was to be aware
of your surroundings and situation. Third lesson, take a deep breath to flood
your brain cells with oxygen to think clearly rather than panic.
Once upon a time I was walking alone at night and felt like I was being followed.
Crossed the street, as did he.
After taking a breath, I suddenly developed an odd gait and tics, pretended to
drool and talked to myself loudly, while my mind raced for alternate plans.
Worked like a charm. lol.
What I do practice, in that I don't carry the revolver on my person, is
SING. Solar plexus, Instep, Nose, Groin. I practice "falling" to the ground
in position to take out a kneecap.
I quietly and easily brought a gropey date to his knees by applying pressure to his knuckle. The bar we were in got very quiet quickly and had several men tell me that they would have never believed that a 5'3' woman at about 125# could protect themselves so well, without being assaultive, without noise and a smile on my face. Made them think twice. lol.
The bar owner jokingly offered me a job as bouncer.
Many thanks to my dad, my drill sargeant and a corrections officer I knew.
Point being, I prefer non-violence, but don't back me into a corner.
To the OP-
It really isn't as scarey here as the picture that has been painted.
I am more concerned about drunk or texting drivers to be honest. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/17/2009 12:40:08 PM | When I refer to weapons handling, I mean just that. Muzzle discipline, trigger control, sight picture, etc. What you described are all good things, and I'm not going to argue agaisnt them. Where a lot of people fall short though is in the actual use of the firearm. The military isn't always a help for that. As mentioned earlier, our first injury, which was self inflicted at the range for my academy class was from a Marine. There were other military guys that were injured as well or couldn't shoot to save their life (or their job).
Knowing various defensive tactics is great and I encourage people to learn them, but its not 100%, especially in an already combative stituation. I recently stopped someone from trying to escape at my job, in the process of getting him off the fence I got kicked several times in the torso, but didn't even feel it when it happened. It wasn't until a couple days later that I actually felt it. Some serious pain was inflicted on the inmate, but yet he continued to fight. Point being is that everyone's pain tolerance is different and with adrenaline going what would normally hurt the person, might barely get noticed. With that said the best option is to have a variety of things to be able to use. From simple pain compliance to lethal force if it is needed. You can't escalate as needed to what you don't have | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/17/2009 3:24:18 PM | I hear what you are saying FL CO.
My dad was an ex-navy man, also a photographer who taught me that firing a gun is alot like taking a picture. Get the shot in the frame, position yourself for steadier aim, breathe in to avoid shake while easing the trigger rather than "pulling" it.
Your career puts you in the position of a potentially combative situation which is a little different than a home invasion.
I was speaking strictly from that standpoint, and as I said, my 4-legged security system is a loud motion detector.
That gives me plenty of time to dial 911 if situation warrants (cell phone on bedstand gps enabled) and prepare for the worst. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/17/2009 3:47:34 PM | | ^In todays world though, especially in bigger cities or towns with drug problems, violent crime can happen to anyone at any time. True, my profession increases my odds, but it doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen outside of work. I can post some links to home invasion videos that would definately qualify for combative. Dogs are a good early warning and some can/may even off a layer of protection. However, even working in the law enforcement field I'm not going to rely on them to get there in time. Even the best response times are usually atleast a few minutes. A lot can happen in that time. Is during those times that seconds matter. There's a saying that goes "When seconds count the police are only minutes away". | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/17/2009 4:11:10 PM | I suppose I could ask the same question. Do you really feel safe living in a place where the only people with guns are the bad guys? Whether or not guns are legal in the U.K., I seriously doubt there are no actual guns in your entire country. They're just not there legally. Which means the only people that possess them are the people with ill intentions. That seems like a much scarier idea to me.
Besides, if you want to get technical, you already likely have multiple lethal weapons in your house. If you own a steak knife, you own a lethal weapon. If you own an icepick, you own a lethal weapon. If you own a hammer, you own a lethal weapon. And the list goes on.
The only thing different about guns is that they are long range. Beyond that, they are no more deadly than any of the objects mentioned above. All of those things can and have been used to kill people. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/18/2009 11:29:25 PM | In the UK, they're trying to OUTLAW POINTY KITCHEN KNIVES!
I kid you not.
Since they've outlawwed most guns, knife crime went WAY up...so they've actually introduced legislation to get rid of pointy kitchen knives.
Hitler woulda LOVED these clowns... 
For some reason the lawmakers of Britain want everyone disarmed...or at least, all Lawful Citizens disarmed. That should seriously worry anyone with at least half an decalitre of sanity.
I guess they really want to make it Easy for the criminal element to take over?? Or for that matter, anyone who gets froggy...Maybe Ireland will launch an invasion to take back Northern Ireland?? | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/19/2009 9:04:34 AM | | if you're minding your business in your car or house behind closed doors,you are showing restraint. your not out asking to be the victim. it is your right to own them and use them to protect your property,family and self from any bonehead crook[to include government]that mean to do harm.that's how our freedom came about in the start of this wonderful??? country. as a veteran , i don't believe in only killing to protect life and liberty for people in other countries because your uncle sam says so. I practice death and destruction for my enemies state side also. PROTECT THE INNOCENT AT ALL COST. Pray if you ever run into trouble that myself or some other stranger runs to help their fellow citizen. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/19/2009 9:14:53 AM | | let me get this straight,you get some guy in the house, shoot him while he's ,let's say, slapping your kids around looking for things of value, and your a murderer????wake up dorothy and ask your family what you would be. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/20/2009 5:26:59 PM |
In the UK, they're trying to OUTLAW POINTY KITCHEN KNIVES!
I kid you not.
Since they've outlawwed most guns, knife crime went WAY up...so they've actually introduced legislation to get rid of pointy kitchen knives.
You can't be serious. If this is actually true, it only reinforces what gun proponents have said all along; that the problem isn't the weapons, it's the people using them. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/20/2009 7:44:26 PM | | I guess that the "Slippery Slope" argument...isn't so radical, huh? Nope. Never was radical, just poopoo'ed by the sheep of society who can't pick up a history book and learn a thing or two about human nature. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/29/2009 8:48:30 AM |
In the UK, they're trying to OUTLAW POINTY KITCHEN KNIVES!
I kid you not.
Yes its true I'm afraid, also any knife with a cutting edge of any sort.
Of course, that is throwing up all sorts of problems. The government has just decreed that cow sizes must be cut by 80% over the next three years because the abbatoirs will not be allowed knives to cut them up for delivery to the butcher's shops, and of course butchers wont have anything to cut the cows up into joints so we are all going to have to buy whole cows.
Oven sizes have had to be increased considerably of course which causes a problem in the average British home, we never envisaged having to roast a whole cow in one go, even one that is only 20% of the size of current cows.
Now for my roast beef sandwich......... oh hold on! I'm not allowed a knife to cut the bread with, oh well, I guess a whole cow between 2 loaves will have to do.
Where DO you people get your ideas from???? 
In 2005 (yes, a whole 4 years ago!) some doctors suggested that maybe large kitchen knives should be banned because they can be used as a deadly weapon. No one took them seriously and here we are, almost at the end of 2009 and us little children are still allowed kitchen knives to play with. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/29/2009 10:27:14 AM |
...in the United Kingdom... Ilegal...fullstop..... and I agree.... but my question is... over the pond where it is legal or normal to have one for survial... do you really feel safe? ...if I felt the need to have such a thing in my home for safety then I would consider moving..... we are not allowed such weapons here.. but for you who are... would you use it? and would you feel ok about it? .... is it not a dangerous thing to own.... I lived in the US for 50 years. Much of my adult life I lived alone. I NEVER had a gun or any other kind of weapon, never wanted one and never felt the need for one. I think a lot of safety is where you live and how you live. The vast majority of people in the US who feel they need to have a gun don't actually need it at all. This would be an absolute deal breaker for me: I would never get into a relationship with someone who had a gun or guns and would never have one in my home under any circumstance. Period and emphatically. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/29/2009 12:37:16 PM | your loss.......................i hope and pray that you never run into a situation where you regret your stance.......and i honestly mean that with nothing but good intent.
you have made your decision and stand by it.....that is your right..............but it is also the right of others who feel differently to own guns.............and as long as you dont try to take away ther rights......no prob | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/29/2009 12:42:49 PM | | guns in the home. the result of america watching way to many westerns in the 50s. | |
|
| guns at home
Posted: 9/29/2009 3:19:07 PM |
Please, please stop, i'm in agony from laughter...
All this talk about protecting yourself, its a croc of poo...
I read stats on US deaths by guns...
You and your family are at greater risk of death or injury by your own gun, suicide, accidental weapon discharge, or domestic violence...  | |
|
|
| Page 34 of 37
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 |
|
Home
login 
