How do anti-gun liberals defend their home and loved ones?

[Gun Runner]

I am new to this web site. I want to stress anti-gun because not all liberals are anti's. I am just curious how an anti-gun liberal defends his family during a home invasion?

To be specific, 2 men break into your home, they are not armed except with the tools they used to break in. They are both convicted felons on parole. You tell them to freeze, they choose to ignore you. They are between you and various family members who are spread throughout the house in different rooms, typical.

Do you expect 911 to save your kids? Just curious how you guys plan for self defense?

[samsingh]

1. see post on liberal gun laws

[Gun Runner]

24. GOOD LORD!

Where in the hell did all these posts come from so fast? I have to run, so I can not even read these now. This should be fun!

[Superfly]

2. Whoa...coming out swinging, eh?

Personally, I think I would have accumulated some time under my belt, but what the hey. Go for it.

[Darkseid69]

3. Baseball bat

[morningtheft]

4. The same way I deal with gun salesmen..

throw feces at them

[Superfly]

8. The only other creature I saw throw feces

was a gorilla in the St Louis zoo. You aren't a gorilla, are you?

[morningtheft]

9. although I was obviously joking...

I still think that would deter an intruder or at least stun them.

I'm not a gorilla.

[Superfly]

16. I was joking too.

Although we are both simians....

[DoNotRefill]

22. I dunno....

it seems that it would take a minute to produce a good wad of feces to lob at the intruder. Would you really have that much time? Would pissing on them help? ;-)

[iverglas]

36. this is where *cats*

... are more useful than dogs for repelling big bad men in your living room.

"it seems that it would take a minute to produce a good wad of feces to lob at the intruder"

Not if you have four cats and make sure that you never completely empty the cat litter box.

There are choices here, of course.

Use the "clumping" stuff, and you end up with hard knobs. Hard would be good, maybe, but you might as well just use a candlestick or something.

Use the non-clumping stuff, and you'll still have sufficiently gooey stuff to make an impression.

Unfortunately, it is not possible, as far as I know, to train dogs to use cat litter, so a good stock of cats seems to be the best solution to this problem.

I have a couple going spare right this moment - a mama and baby living under my deck -- if anybody could use them ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

37. Having scooped many a litter pan...

I must note that the "clumps" break apart with very little effort. I'm not sure of the self-defense utility of throwing them, unless you're counting on the "grossness" factor to scare them away. Now if you put it in a sock to make a sap, that's a different matter.

[Wcross]

35. Learn that in prison?

The same way I deal with gun salesmen.."
Posted by morningtheft
throw feces at them

[DK666]

5. Hmmmmm

You baiting us ?

[Terran]

41. Yes, that exactly what he's doing. n/t

[MrBenchley]

6. I'd paralyze them

with the mystic powers I got from my years of study in Tibet....

[CO Liberal]

7. This Has Never Happenned

ANd it probably won't. I have deadbolt locks on the doors, and two dogs that live in the yard. Plus my wife and I both have cell phones for calling 911. And neighbors who look out for each other.

[DoNotRefill]

11. "And neighbors who look out for each other."

So, you're basing your defense on your neighbors having guns and looking out for you?

Too bad you cannot do the same for them...

[CO Liberal]

23. No, Not at All

I guess you're unfamiliar with the concept of "Neighborhood Watch" programs????

:-)

[DoNotRefill]

25. Sure I am...

they'll call the police, and then watch you being victimized.

[CO Liberal]

26. Why.....

...do you have so much trust in guns, and so little in your fellow man???

[DoNotRefill]

39. because...

guns are mechanical objects that function reliably when maintained properly. Put good ammo in a well maintained firearm, pull the trigger, and the gun WILL fire. There's NO risk that a gun will just roll over and go back to sleep, or not want to get involved, or have the stereo up too loud for them to hear your distress, or being too drunk to function properly, or be on a doughnut break or on the crapper, or things like that. People, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.

[Lefty48197]

69. That's the problem

The gun nuts have no faith in their fellow man. They think that there's an armed criminal behind every corner waiting to shoot them. Clearly paranoia is a common trait of the gun nuts.

[fromthehip]

70. Lefty, it isn't about trust.

Lefty, it isn't that they have no trust or no faith, it is that they believe they are responsible for their own safety. And they choose to insure their safety from criminals by having guns as defensive tools. Whether you agree with them or not, that is the thought process, and by their belief system, it is perfectly rational. I have many of the same traits, I have a death threat out against me. Obviously the police cannot protect me from somebody who wants to murder me, so the cops have advised me to carry a weapon at all times. And I do that. The thing that we have to remember as a party is that there are over 80 million lawful gun owners in the United States, I don't think that it would be in our interests, as a party, to alienate them.

[Lefty48197]

72. True, I wouldn't want to alienate the 80 million

but I have no problem recognizing that the 4 million (5%) NRA members have already alienated themselves from the Democratic party and all of us Democrats.
edited for spellying

[MrBenchley]

75. Amazing, isn't it?

We're supposed to alienate and endanger 212 million other Americans to bend over backward to pander to a tiny extremist splinter group of those 80 million gun owners.

[fromthehip]

80. Hey, that was sarcasm, wasn't it?

Nice use of sarcasm there, Mr. Benchley. 80 million, a tiny splinter group...got a laugh out of me...25% to 30% of the country is a tiny splinter group, you are definitely an amusing individual. Actually, yes, you should care about that group. They are the ones who looked at Al Gore and George Bush. They determined that George W. Bush was friendlier to their freedoms and would not try to disarm them. They swung the election. Any voting block that big needs to be pandered to. What I don't understand is why some of my fellow Dems want to take away my ability to defend myself against criminals.

[MrBenchley]

82. Wow, amazing you were able to recognize that

laden down as you are with all those distortions and misconceptions...

Let's see, Lefty talks about the FOUR million wild-eyed inbred loonies who make up the NRA on their best day.....I say, "We're supposed to alienate and endanger 212 million other Americans to bend over backward to pander to a tiny extremist splinter group of those 80 million gun owners," and you say "wow, he's talking about 80 million people."

"What I don't understand is why some of my fellow Dems want to take away my ability to defend myself against criminals. "
What I don't understand is how the RKBA crowd can be so consistently and transparently dishonest.

[fromthehip]

83. Perhaps

Perhaps you should type more clearly and perhaps you should use arguement instead of insult. That would greatly increase your credibility, as I have yet to read a gun related post of yours that is based on anything more than emotion (perhaps they are out there, I'll keep looking)

[MrBenchley]

84. Gee, perhaps I'll take your advice

about the time pigs take to the air....

"That would greatly increase your credibility"
Gee, I'm not the one here spouting rubbish.

[fromthehip]

87. Still no fact based post on guns that I can find

From MrBenchley. Although he holds extreme views, I would not deny him the ability to voice those views. Remember, if you are free to be a liberal or a conservative or whatever else you choose to be, thank a man with a gun. Note Bene that states that have enforced a monopoly on weapons ended up murdering citizens. USSR comes to mind. So does Hitler's Germany. Idi Amin did it too. The fact in the United States is that the locales with the least restrictive gun laws tend to have less VIOLENT crime. However, they do tend to have a greater rate of PROPERTY crime. That is because the criminals, who have guns anyway (in restricted locales like Chicago and Los Angeles) becuase they, by definition, violate the law...know that the law abiding citizen cannot fight back. The places with very permissive gun laws, such as Florida, TX, NC, ND, VT, AL, GA, SC, LA, MI, MS, PA, NV, AZ, WA, OR, MT, CO, IN, KY, WV, ID, Maine, and a few others have lower violent crime rates, generally, but higher property crime rates, generally, than the restricted states such as Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, California, and others. Maybe, the correlation between lack of gun control and lack of crime is coincidence, maybe the people in the more permissive states are just better people than the ones in the restricted states, who knows? But the numbers don't lie. The above is factual...and I carry my gun every day...I've used it to protect myself against armed (baseball bat) attack by a criminal. I am here because of that gun (5 shot .38 Spl. snub nosed revolver). Before anybody goes into a rant about how guns are bad because they kill people, keep in mind that Laura Bush's and Ted Kennedy's cars have killed more people than my dozens of guns.

[Paladin]

88. Oh, Brother.......

"Remember, if you are free to be a liberal or a conservative or whatever else you choose to be, thank a man with a gun."

Fair enough. I'd like to thank Sarah Brady's son (who received a deer rifle from his mom, which touched off one of the few times an honest-to-God sporting firearm has ever been mentioned here in J/PS by RKBA militants, as opposed to pistols and assault rifles)for allowing me to be a liberal.

By the way, bonus points for your mentioning "Ted Kennedy's cars" in your post. Nice to see your Democratic Party credentials on display....

[fromthehip]

90. Well, Paladin, it is true.

Hi, Paladin...did you go to Furman University? Anyway, I despise Ted Kennedy for what he did to that poor woman. Just because I am a Democrat doesn't mean that I have to support philandering amoral drunks. Note that I also talked about Laura Bush's car. I will criticize individuals from both parties who deserve it, and Ted Kennedy deserves it, in my opinion. Take care, fromthehip.

[Paladin]

91. Didn't Go To Furman

n/t

[fromthehip]

116. Asked because...

Asked b/c your screen name is the same as the team name for Furman University in Greenville SC.

[MrBenchley]

96. What a pantload...

"Remember, if you are free to be a liberal or a conservative or whatever else you choose to be, thank a man with a gun."
No, thank America's civilian-soldiers, who have fought with our collective guns. Or are we all supposed to just make up history, like the RKBA crowd does?

"keep in mind that Laura Bush's and Ted Kennedy's cars have killed more people than my dozens of guns. "
Try not to sound so disappointed.

[fromthehip]

99. Can't do it, can you?

Hello, Mr.B, looks like you were unable to come up with cogent refutation of my statements. I find it unfortunate that "what a pantload" seems to be the best you can do. Please try again when you are able to postulate rational hypothosies with something other than the tempestuous emotional stutterings that have been the replies to the suasive facts I have set forth.

[MrBenchley]

108. Don't need to do much more than that...

It's rubbish from tip to toe....

"tempestuous emotional stutterings"
You mean like people raving about "Ted Kennedy's car?"

[fromthehip]

115. Your lack of arguement is hysterical.

I get it, you are a troll! You get people all worked up, giving you facts, and then you respond with an insult or dismissal...without any rational thought to back up your position. Either that, or you are a teenager.

[MrBenchley]

118. Not worth arguing with gibberish

Now go rave about "Teddy Kennedy's car" to someone who cares...

[iverglas]

85. truly amazing

... that someone would read:

a tiny extremist splinter group of those 80 million gun owners

and say in response:

80 million, a tiny splinter group.

I mean, it's amazing enough that someone would THINK that. But SAY it?

Makes ya wanna eat rat poison.

.

(html edited)

[fromthehip]

92. You are right

I should have read more carefully

[iverglas]

98. good policy

Read what other people are really saying ... rather than seeing what one thinks they might say or would like them to say.

Respond, if one wishes to respond, to what they said ... not to what one misunderstood them to say or wishes they had said or would like someone to think they said, or to something else that someone else somewhere else sometime else may have said.

Misunderstandings can be innocent. There are certain skills that can assist one to avoid innocent misunderstandings.

One good policy is to check whether one's understanding of what someone else said makes sense. For example, it doesn't make sense that someone would call a group that amounts to close to 1/4 of the US population "a tiny splinter group". The fact that such a statement would be nonsense is what could be called "one's first clue".

There is very little to be gained by *not* trying to understand what another person has said. Of course, misunderstanding what someone else said (or pretending to have misunderstood it, in other cases) does give one an opportunity to falsely characterize the person who said it, and that person's policy positions. Some people do indeed think that these are worthwhile practices. And some people undoubtedly do succeed in getting their own way by using such practices.

Those people are not generally regarded as adherents of liberal democratic principles.

Your misunderstanding appears to have been innocent, in the sense that you misread what was said. Given that your misreading produced a nonsense, and that you attributed that nonsense (and necessarily some motivation for speaking such nonsense -- i.e. intent to misrepresent and mislead) to someone else, it was quite unfortunate. It could have been avoided.

If one starts with the assumption that the person with whom one is speaking is speaking in good faith, one will be less likely to suffer such misunderstandings, I find. One will immediately realize that there is something wrong with what one thinks the person has said and that s/he is not likely to have said it, and be prompted to reconsider in an effort to see the real meaning.

Of such efforts are genuine dialogue made, and only out of such efforts can the kinds of solutions to problems that are appropriate in a liberal democratic society be found.

,

[MrBenchley]

97. If it wasn't for distortion and dishonesty

the RKBA crowd would have NO arguments at all....

[fromthehip]

100. really

I state my error and am attacked. I commend your maturity.

[MrBenchley]

110. Here's a tip

There are little lines on the forum that show you which post a post refers back to. There's also a number in the upper right hand corner that links to the post being referred to.

If you pay attention, you would knnow I am responding to this post....

"iverglas  (1000+ posts) Sun Oct-05-03 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #82
85. truly amazingEdited on Sun Oct-05-03 12:00 PM by iverglas
... that someone would read:
a tiny extremist splinter group of those 80 million gun owners
and say in response:
80 million, a tiny splinter group.
I mean, it's amazing enough that someone would THINK that. But SAY it?
Makes ya wanna eat rat poison."

Otherwise, we might think that somebody screaming that he's being attacked is freely indulging in that deliberate RKBA distortion Ivergals and I so accurately pointed out.

[fromthehip]

117. Yawn

Another attack...

[MrBenchley]

119. Nope, just a friendly tip

to someone who seems unable to read and comprehend what's posted.

[dustind]

137. if you do the math...

Consider how many of the 212 are children under 18, and how many are in jail, other things beyond their control, use their family members guns, are too old, etc, etc.

Also consider that mant of the remaining millions may not have an interest in firearms but see nothing wrong with them. I have no interest in owning art but I defend peoples right to own it.

Consider that most of the MMM ralies attract fewer than five people.(I have links to news stories if anyone wants)

All of the anti gun groups combined only have a few thousand members vs 4.6 for the NRA alone.

Anti gunners are the extreme fringe.

[MrBenchley]

138. So out of the 80 million gun owners

less than 1/20th buy that gun rights horseshit...and we're supposed to believe that the NRA has 4.6 million members because they said so? Their annual convention draws the same dreary 40,000 loonies...half of whom are employed by the gun indistry.... and the audited circulation of their magazines doesn't add up to anything near 4.6 million...and has been dropping steadily.

"I have no interest in owning art but I defend peoples right to own it."
Let us know next time you hear of a drive-by sculpting killing people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Have you ever lived in a neighborhood with a Neighborhood Watch?

I did while I lived ina high-crime East Coast city in the 1970s. Our racially mixed neighborhood had a volunteer foot patrol and regular social gatherings so that the neighbors would get to know one another.

One evening after the first social gathering, my roommates and I were sitting around when we heard a scream. We all got up and rushed outside, only to find that everyone else from every house on the block had rushed outside as well.

We reached our front porch just in time to see two young men high-tailing it off in the direction of a particularly drug-infested housing project about five blocks away.

The scream had come from a young girl on a bicycle. The two guys had tried to drag her off her bike, but they had run off when they saw that the whole street was coming to the girl's defense. The girl was emotionally shaken, but not physically injured or raped.

Creating a sense of community and watching out for one another--they're powerful weapons.

[Gun Runner]

29. How old are you?

Sure it does? It happens all the time. Your exact description only add alarm system too. And heavily armed neighbors. They come through the window, the one that does not set off the alarm system, having scouted your home ahead of time they know where to hit. They also know because you have dogs your system does not use a motion sensor when you are gone. Rarely do they go through the dead bolted doors.

You need to add an alarm system at the very least to compliment your dogs, but understand dogs are not the deterence people think they are. They are an excellent early warning system, but they buy you 30 seconds to a minute. 911 call takes longer than that alone just to dial and connect. Now they are inside, ask them to leave?

PS deadbolted doors are easy to kick in, just too obvious so they usually don't do it.

[iverglas]

32. ah, a complimentary alarm system

The best kind.


"You need to add an alarm system at the very least to compliment your dogs"

"Good girl! What a handsome dog! What a charming dog! What a clever dog!"

Talking alarm systems spewing compliments at dogs. Yup, the best kind. At the very least, the big bad men will think there is a lunatic in the house.

.

[MrBenchley]

34. It might startle the robbers

as they pause during their break in to politely explain to you that they are convicted felons out on parole....

[Terran]

42. Heheh!

:toast:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Paranoia strikes DEEP

Into your life it will creep...

[trigz]

130. Getting paranoid at all?

Jeeez, man, you sound like you're thinking about this non-stop. Calm down.

[vi5]

10. It's called living in a small enough town...

Where the police station is only a mile away and having an alarm system with an instant alert button right by my bed that not only sets off a ridiculously loud and painful siren in my house, but sends a signal directly to the police station.

There's just as much a chance of this working successfully as their is me waking up, realizing what is going on, gaining my composure, grabbing my gun and effectively getting the intruders.

And it also means I have less of a chance of accidentally shooting myself or a family member of having my daughter accidentally do it.

[Sal316]

12. I rarely wander here into the gun dungeon... but...I can't resist this one

First of all, you'll find that a vast majority of liberals aren't 'anti-gun'. I don't, and never will, have a gun in my household. That's my choice. Doesn't make me 'anti-gun', just makes my house a gun-free zone and removes that 43x greater risk of someone in my house being shot because I have one. Most liberals are 'pro responsible gun laws'.

2) The 'plan for self defense' argument in nothing but a strawman. It's preying on and hyping fear to push the issue. I, myself, have been carjacked and some of you here know the story. Still, I refuse to own a gun. To "plan for self defense" is allowing fear and paranoia to run your life. Bad things are going to happen and whether you have a gun or not isn't going to stop them.

I do, as compared to you, have faith in law enforcement. They saved my life last time...and that was on a deserted road in South Carolina.

No system is perfect, but widespread proliferation of firearms to a society that is nowhere the level of emotional and psychological maturity to handle them is a bad idea.

[DoNotRefill]

20. Ah. the 43 times statistic again.

"Doesn't make me 'anti-gun', just makes my house a gun-free zone and removes that 43x greater risk of someone in my house being shot because I have one."

Don't take this as a personal attack, because that's not how it's meant. I'm just wondering if your family members are so stupid that they couldn't come up with another method to commit suicide than with a gun. Because that's what the VAST majority of that "43X" statistic is based upon.

Not having a gun in the house does NOTHING to reduce the chances of a family member committing suicide, it just affects how they might do it. Last time I checked, ropes still worked fine for committing suicide. Did you get rid of everything in the house (rope, knives, electric cord, electricity, automobiles, duct tape, dryer vent hosing, tylenol, chemical cleansers, etc) that a family member could kill themselves with?

[Sal316]

28. Regardless of whether it's suicide or not....

Psychologically, guns are impersonal and cold. It's substantially easier for someone to shoot themselves or someone else because of it. It takes milliseconds.

Things like ropes, knives, etc. are much more personal and intimate. You wanna hang yourself, hope you break your neck or else it's gonna be a miserable death. Slit your wrists? Sure, if you don't mind watching yourself bleeding out. Poison? Still time for a second thought.

With a gun it's over in less than that blink of an eye and, I would think, have a much greater chance of success.

Besides.. how many news stories do you hear about someone hanging themself versus the 'kids got the gun and unintentionally blew his best friend away' stories? I'm not just talking on the evening news, because we all know they're sensationalist, but in the paper, deeply buried.

If it's in the house there IS a greater risk of being shot, intentionally or not. That's just common sense.

[DoNotRefill]

40. "Psychologically, guns are impersonal and cold."

considering that they're inanimate objects, I'd worry if they were psychologically warm and fuzzy.

Regarding people hanging themselves, it happens frequently. Accidentally, too. Remember the lead singer if INXS? Of course, it's generally not as "newsworthy"...

[demsrule4life]

33. Dont forget the family car

how my sister did it sept 91, there was several guns in the house but she chose carbon monoxide.

[Uzybone]

65. Look who is wondering if other people are stupid?

Do you deny the fact that having a gun in the home makes it more likely that someone in that home will be shot?? Duh. And yea that stat may be based on suicides but ony a fool would argue that having a gun available makes a potential suicide more likely than fiddling with rope, exhaust pipes, ovens, belts, knifes, pills etc. I own a gun so dont flame me with that either. You could have easily made your point without insulting the other poster.

[Tannim]

44. 43 number is bad science. Research was flawed.

The premise that guns are 43 more likely to cause a death to the homeowner of family is flawed. See text from link below.

http://www.ct71st.com/GunControl/Myth2.htm

This "fact" is simply wrong. Guns of any type, including handguns, do not make it 43 times more likely you or your family will be injured. In fact, the opposite is true. Guns make us all safer. Here's why:

This so-called study was conducted by Arthur L. Kellermann, an anti-self defense lobbyist with an axe to grind. The "study" was designed to produce a pre-determined result. The "study" is pure "junk science."

A flawed study: At the end of his report, Kellermann acknowledged his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed."

In other words, Kellermann ignored the vast majority of situations in which legally armed citizens frightened away intruders simply by displaying a firearm! What Kellermann did was like conducting a study on the percentage of drunk drivers on the road by counting the number of drunks locked up in jail at 2 a.m. on a Saturday morning. Obviously, you would incorrectly think that everyone on the road was drunk.

Further, Kellermann also acknowledged that of the 43 deaths for every intruder killed, 37 were suicides. This is significant since ample research, and the situation in Japan, shows that merely removing firearms from a society does not reduce the suicide rate..

The facts: By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. These are the very cases Kellermann chose to ignore. Had Kellermann considered these facts, he would have had to conclude a firearm in the home makes a family safer.

More importantly, Prof. Kleck also discovered that robbery victims who defended themselves with a gun suffered lower rates of injury than did those who resisted without a gun, or even those who did not resist at all and instead complied with the violent criminal's demands. In short, Prof. Kleck concluded the private ownership of firearms deters criminal behavior.

[MrBenchley]

45. Not even close to true

However much the RKBA crowd likes to piss and moan, Kellerman's study was valid and its results have been borne out by independent studies.

"By carefully examining facts and statistics from the Department of Justice, the F.B.I. and other law enforcement agencies, Prof. Gary Kleck from the School of Criminology, Florida State University, discovered Americans use firearms to prevent crimes approximately 1 to 1.5 million times per year. "
Even Kleck has backed away from that claim now....in order for Kleck's numbers to be true there would have to be four times as much crime as there is now, three times as many criminals wounded by gunfiure as there are all Americans wounded, and twicve as many criminals killed as there are all Americans killed.

Other surveys,which took the precaution of asking respondents if they had been the victim of an attempted crime BEFORE asking "did you prevent a crime with a gun you own" saw the numbers dwindle away to almost nothing.

[Tannim]

62. That's right, Kellerman isn't.

"However much the RKBA crowd likes to piss and moan, Kellerman's study was valid and its results have been borne out by independent studies."

No they haven't. Even Kellerman *HIMSELF* revised that number to 2.5 times more likely. Say what you want, but when the study's AUTHOR recants, it's wrong. I'm suspect of his 2.5 number too because his track record is horrible. (Why didn't I mention this before? I was saving it for this response. I knew someone would try it)

[MrBenchley]

64. Not even close to true

But thanks for playing "What's my RKBA fantasy."

[Wetzelbill]

13. Personally, I got a gun and, as a former wrestler with mano y mano

type hybrid fight skills I do ok either way.

My ideas toward gun control is it is a person's right to have one and use them for hunting or protection, however, gun ownership requires background checks etc. You shouldn't let any idiot walk into a shop and buy one if they have a violent past or aren't fit to pass some sort of safety certification for a permit. Also, there is really no use for an average person to have assault or any type of weapon isn't meant for protection or recreation. Those are for military and security uses, not for some shmuck to smoke up a deer into smithereens. Guns are not a bad thing at all as long as they are not abused. Were it not for these abuses then we would not need to have any type of regulation. Back in MT, my home state, I know lots of people who aren't adult enough to have guns, yet they are the first to cry about regulation. I know people who shoot each other with birdshot when they are drunk, but get all high and mighty about gun laws. I'm afraid until somebody invents a cure for stupidity then "anti-gun liberals" have a good case to be concerned.

[Wetzelbill]

correction

I have a gun in my house, it is my brothers not mine, but I don't mind it there because we are "responsible adults." Nor do have I minded growing up in a house of gun owners and having roommates with guns. Again, it is that "responsible adult" thing.

[Bozola]

14. I use the threat of atomic weapons, myself.

I've got a surplused nuclear weapon in the basement and I'm not afraid to use it.


To be specific, 2 men break into your home, they are not armed except with the tools they used to break in. They are both convicted felons on parole. You tell them to freeze, they choose to ignore you. They are between you and various family members who are spread throughout the house in different rooms, typical.

Heaven forbid that you don't start screaming and (generally make alot of noise) set of the preset alarms to alert your fellow blockwatch neighbors. Oh? You don't belong to an active blockwatch? I guess you're f*cked then. Why do you gunnut clowns always avoid the power of community?

I suppose that I could buy a gun, fire it at suspected intruders, miss, and have the bullet pass through the wall and kill someone I care about.

[DK666]

15. Actually

I have a large dog. And I have a large bore handgun. I do not have a problem defending my family/loved ones. I also agree that it is a strawman argument.

[DCDemo]

17. WIth knives, bat, machete, throwing knife, broken bottle, hot water

Other caustic chemicals...whatever I happen to have around at the time. Many things are effective weapons...you just have to be a little creative.

Home invasions are very rare - a person would be hit by lightening or win the lottery before it's likely that they would suffer a home invasion.

Strapping on a 6-shooter to protect against this danger is foolhardy - protecting myself and family from falls and car accidents are much more my concern as these things are much more likely to occur.

[DoNotRefill]

21. Ah. the Oven Cleanser defense.

How spiffy. ;-)

[ScrewyRabbit]

18. Wait, I can do this one, too

You're walking down the street toward your car, and two men are breaking into it. They are not armed except with the tools they are using to break in. They are both convicted felons on parole. You tell them to freeze, they choose to ignore you. They are between you and various family members who are in the car.

By your logic, everyone on the street should carry a gun, too, rather than rely on the police, neighbors, dogs, non-lethal defensive measures, etc. Yeah, I want to live in that world.

[Fescue4u]

19. When I was anti-gun...

I simply didnt.

Ok, well I did have an alarm system, which will produce a cop in about 30 minutes if you are lucky. That and living in a safe neighborhood were enough of a comfort factor.

Frankly, before I open my eyes to civil right of gun ownership, I simply left defending my family to chance.

It sounds pathetic to write that now, but its the truth.

[MrBenchley]

27. Astonishing coincidence

"I want to stress anti-gun because not all liberals are anti's."
You know when I say pro-gun racist right wing loonies, I stress pro-gun because not all racist right wing loonies are pro-gun.

[1monster]

30. Hmm... I keep my doors and windows locked, have a noisy dog, and keep

a phone on which I can dial 911 handy...

My husband does have guns, but I make him keep them locked up in a safe to ensure the everyday safety of my family.

So far, this has worked reasonably well.

[iverglas]

31. that's easy

"2 men break into your home, they are not armed except with the tools they used to break in. They are both convicted felons on parole. You tell them to freeze, they choose to ignore you. They are between you and various family members who are spread throughout the house in different rooms, typical.

Do you expect 911 to save your kids? Just curious how you guys plan for self defense?


Turn off the damned television and try relating to reality for a while.

That should solve your problem.

.

[DoNotRefill]

43. were you not relating to reality when you were sexually assaulted?

Bad things happen. You know that. "Be Prepared" is more than just the Boy Scouts motto.

[LastDemInIdaho]

38. 911 helps get the meat wagon there quicker

Meanwhile the rapist or mugger has moved on to his next victim.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. I feel sorry for you guys

No really.

What a nightmare, terrifying, gut-wrenching fantasy world you must live in, a world in which big scary criminals will eventually make their way to everyone's home for a home invasion, a world in which you can't ever leave the house without your concealed weapon because there are muggers, rapists, and axe murderers lurking behind every tree, a world in which everyone who isn't of your social class or race is viewed with suspicion.

I live in a large city with a mid-level crime rate, and I worry about home invasions about as much as I worry about being struck by lightning or dying of a burst aorta--i.e. things that could possibly happen to me (since anything can happen to anyone), but not worth spending a lot of energy fighting.

In my previous city, which had an excellent public transit system, I traveled all over town through all kinds of neighborhoods and walked between my apartment and the transit stations and bus stops at all hours of the day and night. I did this for ten years without ever having any reason to be frightened. (Grossed out occasionally, but never frightened.) I learned something very important: the vast mojority of people in all races and classes are decent.

I have ridden public transit systems in Portland, Minneapolis, New York, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and yes, even Los Angeles, at night. An Angeleno of my acquaintance who heard about this was horrified, since he won't even leave his house after dark unless he can drive right out of his attached garage ("Chicken," I thought silently.) But actually, even though I was the only white person on the whole crowded bus and then had to wait at the subway station for 15 minutes around 11PM, everyone was fine.

About 20 years ago, I realized that everything worthwhile I had ever done had absolutely terrified me at first, so I decided not to let fear rule my life.

Sure, I can't guarantee that I won't be raped and murdered, but on the other hand, cancer or a car accident might get me before the criminals have a chance, so I figure, what's the big deal?

It's better than turning my home into a Fortress of Fear.

[demsrule4life]

47. I don't let fear rule my life

My parents home has been broken into twice. Once when I was a kid and the house was occupied, about 2.00 am and once when the house was not occupied. The threat is out there. My fear is my house in Alabama does not have a basement or storm shelter and the second tornado season is in Nov, is it not reasonable for me to be worried about it? Hopefully I will have the funds saved up before april-may when the big tornado season starts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. But nobody was killed

and if you had had a gun and had killed the burglar, well, then you would have been exacting the death penalty for an act which is not a capital crime in any state.

Stuff can be replaced.

I've been in three car accidents, none of which were my fault. Do I tremble with fear each time I step into a car? (No, only when certain people are driving. :-) ) Nobody does, and yet driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

[demsrule4life]

51. I left some of the story out

bad guy took a load of buckshot in the legs, this person had broke into several houses in the neighborhood and my father kept a shotgun next to his bed. Of course nobody was injured in the second breakin since the house was not occupied at the time.

[DoNotRefill]

58. exacting the death penalty...which is not a capital crime in any state.

Actually, shooting somebody who breaks into your home and threatens you is legal in practically every state, and it's not the Death Penalty, it's self-defense.

If there are people home when a burglar breaks in, there's a pretty good risk of harm to the people home.

You bring up the example of driving and automobile accidents. When you drive, you carry auto insurance, right? You probably also put on your seat belt to protect yourself if there is an accident, right? Owning a gun for self-defense is EXACTLY the same thing as fastening that seatbelt. It's a matter of taking appropriate precautions on the off-chance that something bad might happen. When you fasten your seatbelt, are you HOPING that there will be an accident? Of course not, and you'd probably do a lot to prevent it. The same is true of guns for self-defense.

[RoeBear]

50. You say...

...that gun nuts own guns because of un-reasonable fears. And we say anti- gun nuts want to ban guns because of your un-reasonable fears.
Who's right?

[MrBenchley]

52. Gee, roe...

Since the "they're going to ban guns" hysteria is a load of crap from the RKBA crowd to start with....I think the answer is pretty obvious.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Actually, Roe, I don't want to ban guns

Many of my relatives are hunters.

I was commenting on the sorry state of anyone who has let sensationalized TV reporting (and it is deliberately sensationalized, or didn't you know that?) and cop video shows influence his view of reality.

The fear-mongering is intended to make us mistrust our fellow human beings, especially those who are different from us. It is intended to make us hole up in our fortified houses instead of getting out and interacting with our neighbors and reclaiming our streets simply by force of numbers.

Japan has an extremely low crime rate (rising because of economic problems, but still enviably low by anyone's standards), and having lived there, I attribute it to the fact that even big-city neighborhoods are really urban villages, with all the necessities of life located nearby and the possibility of interacting with the same people day after day. People walk a lot more than they do here, and at all hours. The "good" people literally outnumber the criminals on the street in all but the neighborhoods that have been tacitly set aside for the yakuza to control.

Two major factors behind the high U.S. crime rate are 1) economic inequality and no one really doing anything about except to apply band-aids that make the underclass even more resentful, and 2) the lack of real old-fashioned communities.

[demsrule4life]

55. Several of us RKBA types have said what you said in the past

But it is dismissed as RKBA hooey



"Two major factors behind the high U.S. crime rate are 1) economic inequality and no one really doing anything about except to apply band-aids that make the underclass even more resentful, and 2) the lack of real old-fashioned communities"

[MrBenchley]

56. Wow dems...

Can't wait to see how you twist what she says, if that's how you twist what I said...

[RoeBear]

60. I'm glad to hear that...

...but when I hear groups who want to ban what they call 'junk' guns (what I call affordable) because they are to readily available and assault weapons because they are too accurate I worry.

I worry because I know that even if they are banned it wouldn't have an effect on murder or crime rates. Bad guys would just substitute a different type of gun. Then the gun grabbers would be after those guns. It's a slippery slope and I don't want to get on it.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Fortress of fear? That's a laugh...

I own a couple of fire extinguishers scattered around the house, which require periodic maintenance and replacement. I own them in case there's a fire. Does that mean that my house is a Fortress of Fear about fire? Of course not. My gun ownership is the same exact thing. There's a possibility something bad might happen. Is it certain? Nope. In fact, it's pretty unlikely. But "just in case", I have guns, just as "just in case", I have fire extinguishers, and "just in case" I have a generator to keep my freezers running and the lights on (ELECTRICITY GOOD!!!).

I'm fully insured. If something bad happens, I'm covered. But my generator, fire extinguisher, and firearm all provide an additional margin of safety.

[RoeBear]

59. You're a crazy...

...extinguisher-nut, not to mention a generator-nut. :toast:

[DoNotRefill]

61. You forgot to mention "freezer nut"!!!

I'll go to great pains, lengths, and expense to make sure my freezers keep working... ;-)

[bleedingheart]

63. I am with Lydia...

I don't live in fear.

My biggest concern right now is the fact that my doctor told me I have to go for a mammogram and ultrasound to check out a lump.... now that is more tangible to me.

[MrBenchley]

66. Good wishes...

Hope everything is all right!

[bleedingheart]

67. thanks

[Lefty48197]

68. I use handgrenades and napalm

How many fucking times do you gun nuts have to ask the same God damned question?

[furrylitldevil]

71. There are a whole lot of if's in that initial question.

Typically, if you catch a intruder, or even a group of intruders who are unarmed in your home, I'm sure the last thing they will do is "ignore you." All too often gun-nuts only look at a situation from one perspective. Remember that the people breaking into your house are PEOPLE, and not some mindless, soul-less monster bent on stealing your things, raping your wife, and killing your children. Odds are, they are just as afraid of going to jail as anyone else, and to get caught means an added posability(sp?) of going to jail. most petty criminals aren't prepared to take a life or rape a woman.

[DoNotRefill]

73. Criminals...

are typically not the most rational beings on the planet. As evidence of this, I'd offer the number of cases in which substance abuse played a part in lowering mental barriers towards comitting a crime. (In ase you're not aware of this, substance abuse is a primary indicator of criminal behavior. Not all substance abusers are criminals, but most criminals are substance abusers.) As such, it's safer for the homeowner to assume that even the unarmed burglar is potentially dangerous. As you said, "they are just as afraid of going to jail as anyone else" (I don't know that I concur, many criminals view jail as just another part of life, and it an be seen as a status symbol among some...) and one good way to avoid going to jail is to not leave witnesses.

I disagree with your characterization that gun nuts think criminals are mindless, soul-less monsters, but must ask what exactly are they doing breaking into a house, if not to steal, rape, or kill? Are they looking to have tea and crumpets, or is breaking and entering some bizarre form of job application process? ("Hi! I broke in because I noticed your yard is terribly messy, to the point that it needs emergency attention. Need a lawn guy?")

Here, at least, breaking into an occupied dwelling in the night time is seen as pretty much prima facia evidence of evil intent, unless there's some mitigating circumstance such as the breaker and enterer is in imminent danger of freezing to death, which is pretty rare. As such, a reasonable person being broken into would rationally assume that the person breaking in poses a danger to the homeowner and the homeowner's family. Under the law here, that means the homeowner can legally shoot first and ask questions later. I don't see that changing any time soon, and I don't think it should change.

[furrylitldevil]

77. Okay, here we go

I will agree that most criminals are motivated by substance abuse, though that does not necessarily mean that they are high on PCP or Crack when they do in-fact break into your house. It can be the reason they commit the crime, but not the state of mind they are in when the crime is committed. With that out of the way, I don't think you have a realistic concept of the petty criminal mind. Yes, they do steal because they need to feed an addiction, but mostly they want the path of least resistance. That means most criminals would rather steal your car stereo than break into your house, most don't use weapons of any sort, and even fewer use lethel weapons.

But I will agree with you when you say that an unlawful entry into a person's home is considered a dangerous situation, if not only because it's one whose outcome can't be easily forseen. In that case though, where an armed assialant(sp?) enters your house with a head full of coke and a nickle-plated 9 strapped to his belt buckle with the intent on either killing or hurting the people who live there, what possible good is a gun going to do to protect? Will the fact that you have a gun magically make his dissappear? Will his bullits miss you if you have a gun in your hand and he fires at you? A gun is, if anything, an illusion of safety. It's like giving a skydiver a helmet, sure the person feels safer, but if the worst happens, a helmet will do nothing to protect said skydiver from certain death.

[Romulus]

78. <huh?>

In that case though, where an armed assialant(sp?) enters your house with a head full of coke and a nickle-plated 9 strapped to his belt buckle with the intent on either killing or hurting the people who live there, what possible good is a gun going to do to protect?

That's why the people in the house should have no other recourse than to sit there and wait for the inevitable. :crazy:

A gun is, if anything, an illusion of safety.

Someone better let the police and military know about that one. :eyes:

[1a2b3c]

79. Let me count the ways

first he is in my house. He doesnt know the halls the rooms or where i am. I know where he is cause....its my house. How is he going to shoot me if he doesnt know where i am? How am i not going to be able to use my gun for defense if i am in the better situation?

How is any of what you said a good reason for me to not have a gun in my home for defense? Since the guy breaking in has a nickle plated nine i should just throw my gun down and go out to confront him in the hopes that he doesnt plan to rape my wife and kill us both when he is done?

[DoNotRefill]

81. "what possible good is a gun going to do to protect? "

There are two possible scenarios in what you've suggested. Either the bad guy will kill you or he will not. The REAL question is HOW ARE YOU SAFER BY NOT BEING ARMED? In your skydiver example, is the skydiver safer with or without the helmet? In the case of a catastrophe, a helmet will not matter, but in some situations it will help.

Please keep in mind that the Dept. of Justice under Clinton found that using a gun for self-defense had the LOWEST possible injury rate of ANY method of dealing with the attack, even of not resisting and complying. Even Kellermann has stated publicly that if his wife was attacked, he'd want her to have a gun to defend herself.

[1a2b3c]

89. Do you have a link to the study of the Kellermann statement?

I could use them in my links.

[DoNotRefill]

93. the quote is:

"If you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. ... If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah. "

It's from the March/April 1994 issue of Health magazine.

[Wcross]

86. Bwaa

Some people call for somebody with a gun to come and help (police), others do it themselves. Why call and wait for someone to rescue you?

"...the intent on either killing or hurting the people who live there, what possible good is a gun going to do to protect? Will the fact that you have a gun magically make his dissappear? Will his bullits miss you if you have a gun in your hand and he fires at you? A gun is, if anything, an illusion of safety."

Uh, you would at least have a 50/50 chance rather than no chance at all.

I guess the reason the cops carry guns is to have that illusion of safety hugh?

[Loyal]

74. MrBenchley would ask them to put down their tools

He would ask for peace, gently, and the criminals would lay down their tools. They would all sit down and enjoy a warm dinner, and afterwards the would-be criminals would leave. MrBenchley would admire his work and be proud of a job well done. Well, no. That would happen in a dream world. ;-)

[MrBenchley]

76. Nice to see RKBA horseshit is alive and well

[George_Bonanza]

94. They should develop non-lethal weapons for self-protection

Animal tranquilizer pistols have a 30-yard range (plenty enough for indoors), while rifles have up to a 100. That should put down any criminal down nice and easy.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Ummmm....

shooting criminals with trank guns is a good way to either kill them (because in order to guarantee a knock-down, you'd need a strong dose for the worst-case criminal scenario, causing an overdose in some) or end up not stopping them.

[trigz]

101. A much easier solution: Get karate lessons & break their arms!

Take lessons in self-defence. That way, guns are redundant, you don't risk going to jail, don't risk taking another's life, protect your family and self with high efficiency, learn how to control your body and mind, and become at ease with yourself.

I've practised martial arts for many years, and was pleased when my wife agreed to take a course in self defence. There is no better way to defend what you care about: Guns and arms only make society more dangerous and violent, and let's not forget: IT KILLS PEOPLE!!

[demsrule4life]

102. There was a murder near my house a couple of

weeks ago. A overweight house wife killed a karate teacher with a pistol. Guess all that martial arts training didn't do him any good.

[demsrule4life]

103. Link to the story

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/030925/karate.shtml

[trigz]

105. Well, reading this quote from the story you linked to...

"As for a motive, she was very upset, and it was more of a disagreement between the instructor and the mother than anything else," Robertson said. "It started out small and this is how it turned out."

Well there you go, don't you? It started out small, the fat lady had a gun, and it all ended with someone getting killed.

What would've happened if the fat lady did not have a gun? Fair enough, she would've gone back to her house thinking Karate bloke was a prat, and that might have been the end of it. Instead, she did it the barbaric way. She got her gun and killed the victim instead. What other anti-gun arguments do you need?

I suppose Karate bloke didn't expect to get shot over a 'small' thing. And of course if you're being shot from ten-fifteen metres, being a karate teacher will do you no good. But the thread talks about how to defend your home and family in a particular situation inside your own home, and that's, well, a different story. I was attacked, last summer, by a drunk idiot with a bottle. Had I not been able to defend myself I expect I'd have had some nasty cuts now.

[DoNotRefill]

109. Ummm...isn't that case a good example how ineffective martial arts are?

Little fat woman caps big bad martial arts teacher...

He studied martial arts and didn't have a gun...and ended up DEAD.

While I feel sorry for the guy's family, it pretty much puts a big hole in your argument that you can protect yourself by being a martial artist, doesn't it?

[trigz]

125. well, that depends, friend...

If Fat Bird was standing 15 feet away when she pulled her trigger on Karate Bloke (and ensured life imprisonment, the death penalty, or something like that, I should think) there's fuck all anyone can do (actually, what would you have done to solve the solution? Started a gunfight with Fat Bird?). However, the original posting was on about defending your family inside your own home. It's a different context, I'm sure you'd agree.

Anyway, please comment on the killing in question, yeah? Guns for everyone, what a wonderful idea, eh?

[trigz]

104. He must have been off form, then...

...but what's your argument? The only way to sensibly defend yourself is buying a gun and having a gunfight with your neighbour? I'm sure that would do any society a world of good. Come on, man...

[DoNotRefill]

106. Hmmmm....

resisting an attacker without a gun has 2 1/2 times the rate of the victim being injured than resisting an attacker with a gun, according to the US DoJ under Clinton.

Even Kellermann, as anti-gun a researcher as you're likely to find, has stated that if his wife were attacked, he'd want her to have a gun to defend herself with.

Let me ask you this....if you and I hypothetically met and fought (regardless of who the aggressor was), what do you think your chances are, you being a Karateka, and me being an ex-cop armed with a handgun and knowing how to use it?

Ever wonder why the military doesn't teach soldiers to be martial artists instead of training them to be riflemen?

[trigz]

107. the really interesting question here, then, is:

What would your threshold be to use that gun? Would you use it just like that and blow my head off if we had an argument?

[DoNotRefill]

111. Nope...only if you acted in a threatening manner.

There are laws here governing self-defense. If a person is engaged in a lawful act and is attacked, they are legally allowed to take whatever steps are reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm or death. The caselaw here is that if the aggressor adopts a martial arts stance, they're legal to shoot, even if they don't have a weapon. The martial arts stance is presumed to be both a threat and an indication that they've received martial arts training, and as such are automatically considered to be armed and dangerous, even if it turns out that all they know of martial arts is what they learned watching The Karate Kid on Nickelodeon.

If I was minding my own business and was approached by a person who started verbally abusing me, I wouldn't shoot him. If that person got into a martial arts stance after verbally abusing me, I'd be within my legal rights to cap him right then. In practice, I'd simply put my hand in my pocket, take hold of my handgun, and be prepared to shoot the attacker if he made any kind of an advance. That approach is hard on clothing, but hey, I can replace a pair of pants or a jacket. My life is irreplaceable.

[trigz]

112. Check the link to the homicide story mentioned above...

Do you reckon Karate bloke would've been killed if Fat Lady hadn't had a gun?

Anyhow, to answer your question: I find it downright disturbing that you would be prepared to actually shoot another person dead if you got into a lip slanging competition with him or her. I agree that some of the posters that have mentioned the aggression and anger latent in American society, and (arguably) the latent ego-fixated aggression that comes along with living in a society built on the values of competition, are right in that this mentality is very contributory in creating a violent society.

For my own part, if I was getting verbally aggravated by someone my first step would be to calm that person down and not raise the tension. If physically attacked, however, believe me that going into the cat stance is by no means necessary. But physically defending myself, and disabling my aggressor from aggravating me would be my absolute last step. There is no way I could ever imagine killing another person.

In Norway, Scandinavia, well Europe we have as many drunken fights, say, as elsewhere. I've even been in a couple myself. The fact of there not being guns available for the twats that get themselves involved in said fights, along with the moral threshold most people would have as regards aiming a pistol toward someone (not even mentioning firing it), means that practically no-one goes to the extent of killing whoever they're fighting (although there are psychos everywhere). Why? I suppose, in many cases, simply because there is no gun available.

One could alternatively assume, such as a few other posters have indicated, that Americans simply are a more aggressive, violent kind of people, but I don't buy that. I know a fair few of you, and I reckon the average American is a fairly nice person.

I do think you are more paranoid than us, however. That is, not at least, because you are taught to be afraid by the government and media and told by television how much crime there is out there, every day. That in itself creates more violence, which, again, more often leads to a deadly outcome (again: Check the link on the murder of Karate bloke) because of the availability of guns, specifically handguns. My 2p.

[MrBenchley]

113. What's even more disturbing

Is that the same posters fussing about "the aggression and anger latent in American society, and (arguably) the latent ego-fixated aggression that comes along with living in a society built on the values of competition" are those simultaneously arguing for more unfettered access to guns, concealed handguns for anyone who feels like it, and more powerful guns allowed on the street.

For a look at another sort of American mentality that contributes to this problem, check out this thread.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=12430&mesg_id=12430

[DoNotRefill]

114. Where did I say that???

"I find it downright disturbing that you would be prepared to actually shoot another person dead if you got into a lip slanging competition with him or her."

If all that's going on is verbal haranging, there's no call for lethal force to defend yourself. It's only when somebody makes an aggressive and threatening PHYSICAL ACT towards you that lethal force may become justified.

"But physically defending myself, and disabling my aggressor from aggravating me would be my absolute last step."

Same here, just different methodology.

" Why? I suppose, in many cases, simply because there is no gun available. "

I've been in plenty of bar fights while armed, and never pulled the gun, much less shot somebody. There's a difference between engaging in exuberant fisticuffs and somebody trying to kill you.

"I do think you are more paranoid than us, however."

Paranoia is it's own reward. Even paranoids have enemies. And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you. If you're paranoid that somebody is out to get you, but somebody really IS out to get you, are you still paranoid? ;-)

[trigz]

123. Here's an indication, I suppose:

If that person got into a martial arts stance after verbally abusing me, I'd be within my legal rights to cap him right then.

Actually I admit I might've put a couple of words into your mouth then, but the scent of your argument remains more or less the same.

You say you've been involved in 'plenty of bar fights and never pulled the gun, much less shot somebody'. Which is a good thing. But what if your gun was nicked and suddenly used against you? How much good would that do you?

Seriously, from whence did this seemingly societal urge to pop a cap in someone's ass if faced with a possible fistfight come from? What happened to the old, honest smack on the nose, fall on your arse, done-with-it-now-piss-off-you-twat thingy?

I suppose one important question is (and I repeat): How many people have barfights and end up getting a bullet in the brain in America? How many people have barfights and end up getting a bullet in the brain in almost any other country in the world? WHY aren't proportionally the same amount of people getting a bullet in the head as a result of quarrels, barfights, foulmouthing or just straight, old-fashioned paranoia in every country around the world? Obviously the immediate access to firearms, or the lack of such, is a crucial element.

I've not seen any stats on the amount of regular fistfighting, or stuff like that, but I do doubt that there is a significantly higher chance of getting into a fistfight over at your end than any other place in the world. Especially Norway, Oslo in particular is a good place for getting a bloody nose when the streets fill up with drunk Norwegians over the weekend...we drink like peasants in this country and probably fight like peasants too, but we don't end up shooting each other. Neither, might I add, do the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish, Danish, Icelandic, Finnish , Romanian, Bulgarian, Moldovan, Latvian, Estonian...I could go on for ever. Why? Why? Why? Guns! Guns! Guns available everywhere. You can't spit bullets at someone, can you?!

Inducing fear and paranoia into the population is a measure of control, of conditioning of the population, as I'm sure you know. How many times have you watched the news without there being some story on a few homicides, drive-bys or what have you? You talk about the chance of someone trying to kill you as an odds-on possibility that could occur at any time. If that's not a good measure of paranoia, I don't know what is, mate...

[demsrule4life]

120. This sounds like one of those innocent questions

from a European.

[trigz]

121. What the f*ck are you on about? Please explain

if you have any valid arguments to enlighten the debate at all, that is. You've been disappointing so far.

[Romulus]

122. good advice

Please explain
Edited on Tue Oct-07-03 05:06 PM by trigz
if you have any valid arguments to enlighten the debate at all, that is. You've been disappointing so far.


Why don't you take it . . . :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demsrule4life]

126. This is exactly what I mean

You don't have anything worthwhile to post, you don't want to discuss anything you just want to argue.

[trigz]

129. Says you, posting your one-liners of drivel? Come oooooooon!

I'm trying to discuss this issue seriously in this thread. Why? Because, coming from a peaceful country in a peaceful continent, I'm mind-boggled by the attitude towards weapons that people such as yourself stand for. If you don't find my postings worthwhile, I won't even bother pinning a definition on the drivel you've been posting lately.

You could give me a proper argument, for a change. You should try it some time, it's a nice feeling. I'm trying to discuss this issue rationally with grown up people, and it appears you don't have a place in this discussion. Good-bye.

[demsrule4life]

131. These sound like something coming from a grownup

go shave your hamster, twatty
A much easier solution: Get karate lessons & break their arms

Don't worry I won't reply back to anything you say since I'am so tired of how infantile some the the anti-gun behave.

[demsrule4life]

132. You from England?

Sounds real peaceful to me
Life for 'honour killing'
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/london/3172202.stm
Three murdered in house
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/london/3171734.stm
Safety measures after sex attacks
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3172110.stm
Residents flee arson attack
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3170118.stm
Wife, 81, held after murder
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3170750.stm
Leeds United player arrested
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/3172720.stm
Woman denies killing cousin
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3172172.stm
Man admits abduction attempt
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/3172454.stm
Terror at the check out
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3164484.stm
Guess I have to stop, running out of room.

[trigz]

133. What's your point?

Is it to prove that Britain is not crime-free? Well, of bloody course it isn't, what did you expect? Of course there's violence and crime everywhere, I've hardly claimed the opposite. Let's address the issue that New York City has a murder rate eight times that of London (which, coincidentally, is the city in Britain, apart from Belfast, with the highest murder rates). I'm not going to bother going over a ton of American newspapers and posting links to stories of homicides I'll find. But, as you took it upon yourself to sample British crime, maybe you could take the job...Seriously though, I'd like to see you start arguing properly instead of merely telling me you think I'm posting drivel. If you're at all interested (or capable).

(Oh and I take it as a big compliment that you thought I was British, cheers ;). I'm Norwegian. Have lived in the UK for years though, mind. Not only that, but I lived in one of the pro capita most violent cities in Britain, namely Coventry. I experienced trouble only once in three years, and even that wasn't serious trouble.)

[trigz]

135. Oh and btw, I'm highly impressed that you've studied news reports from...

...eight counties, and come up with a total of nine stories to back up your argument. Seems like an extremely dangerous place to be, Britain, doesn't it?

[MrBenchley]

127. You've tumbled to the central truth...

about the RKBA crowd...they have no valid arguments, and so depend on crap like this. The whole idea is to get anyone not goofy for guns and right wing propaganda in a flame war and booted off the forum.

A chunk of this bunch aren't even Democrats...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33227&highlight=%2ADemocratic+Underground%2A

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trigz]

134. Quite

Good to see a sensible voice inbetween the adolescents that seem to converge on this thread...

[MrBenchley]

136. There are actually quite a lot

but few have the stomach to put up with the rabidly dishonest RKBA crowd.