Guns and Stuff.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, actually, that is exactly what we are trying to do. I am not at all sure the commercial interests and the NRA allow the same political agenda in the US.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you really loved your children you'd actually do something about it.  We at least teach our children to defend themselves.  But you teach your children that defending themselves is punishable by law.

But it appears that the British love keeping up appearances more than they love their children.  Why don't you do something that will actually protect your children?

Best Wishes...

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And that's really the bottom line when a Brit is telling an American that we should get rid of guns.  They don't really know what the principles of freedom really are.  They live in a police state and don't even realize it.  If they reduced the number of police to the ratios we have in the US, it wouldn't matter how many gun laws and outright bans there would be.  There would be no statistically significant difference in gun-related homicides than before the ban.  And I'd daresay it would be higher.

Look at what they have here:  A 78 y.o. homeowner was arrested for defending his home from burglars.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/04/suspected-burglar-dies-tussle-pensioner-78/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/04/man-arrested-fatal-stabbing-suspected-burglar-london

Halfway down the Telegraph link, it tells of another incident of a homeowner arrested for defending his home.  I also recall a woman who simply brandished a kitchen knife to scare a burglar away.  He called the police on her and she got arrested.

But hypocrites wouldn't understand why that is wrong.

Best Wishes...

A burglar is one who enters a building illegally to commit a crime, generally for theft in the case of a house.  A robbery is theft by threat of force.  In the UK, a burglar can be a robber, but generally not.  They are just there to steal, not to hurt.  And although I don't like the idea of people taking my stuff, I am not willing to kill to protect it. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

A burglar is one who enters a building illegally to commit a crime, generally for theft in the case of a house.  A robbery is theft by threat of force.  In the UK, a burglar can be a robber, but generally not.  They are just there to steal, not to hurt.  And although I don't like the idea of people taking my stuff, I am not willing to kill to protect it. 

First, what does that difference have to do with the examples I gave?  They were all called "burglars" in the respective news articles.

Second, are you seriously saying that whenever someone comes into our homes illegally, that we ought to take the time to politely ask if they are there to hurt people or steal stuff?  I'm sure that is a really wise move.

Any time someone is in my home illegally, I have every right to believe he has evil intent toward me.  Anyone willing to break into a home is usually ready to harm the people in it in order to obtain his objective  (whether that objective is property or life).

[2ndRateMind]

40 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Are you requesting we give you a warning?   The passive aggressive behavior you are engaging in is bullying AND abusive.

Actually, I defy you to quote me over my last three threads where I have been personally abusive to or bullied any individual contributor. On the other hand, I have personally been accused of being a hateful bigot, being staggeringly ignorant, being a troll, being racist, sexist and ageist, and too many more other insults than I can be bothered to bring to mind. I may tend to express myself in a somewhat trenchant manner, but I have never insulted any individual, and if you all take offense at my style a) you all have very thin skins, and/or b) you all don't really want to discuss the matters I raise at all. Either way, this level personal abuse is unjustified, unjustifiable and does not reflect well on the perpetrators concerned.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[pam]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

What are her current Thorts on this possibility?

Using my ban hammer on you.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

First, what does that difference have to do with the examples I gave?  They were all called "burglars" in the respective news articles.

Second, are you seriously saying that whenever someone comes into our homes illegally, that we ought to take the time to politely ask if they are there to hurt people or steal stuff?  I'm sure that is a really wise move.

Any time someone is in my home illegally, I have every right to believe he has evil intent toward me.  Anyone willing to break into a home is usually ready to harm the people in it in order to obtain his objective  (whether that objective is property or life).

Of course you have the right to defend, at least in the US you do. I would prefer to leave the house instead or make a loud noise like a gun shot to convince them to leave. 

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to take a life.  Defending your house puts you in that situation.  My answer to that is my little German shepherd dog.  She would happily let a potential bad dude know that I do not want their presence in my house. I suspect that they would understand and move on to easier pickings. 

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Of course you have the right to defend, at least in the US you do. I would prefer to leave the house instead or make a loud noise like a gun shot to convince them to leave. 

You don't need to make a loud noise. When someone breaks into your home with a crowbar or .38 and is determined to harm you or your family, asking them politely to leave usually works. Just remember to say please and thank you. If that doesn't work, offer them milk and cookies. 

 

That's how it works, right @mirkwood?

Edited May 18, 2018 by MormonGator

[pam]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Of course you have the right to defend, at least in the US you do. I would prefer to leave the house instead or make a loud noise like a gun shot to convince them to leave. 

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to take a life.  Defending your house puts you in that situation.  My answer to that is my little German shepherd dog.  She would happily let a potential bad dude know that I do not want their presence in my house. I suspect that they would understand and move on to easier pickings. 

Or heaven forbid just shoot the dog.  Those who really want to cause harm are going to do it.

[Grunt]

8 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Of course you have the right to defend, at least in the US you do. I would prefer to leave the house instead or make a loud noise like a gun shot to convince them to leave. 

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to take a life.  Defending your house puts you in that situation.  My answer to that is my little German shepherd dog.  She would happily let a potential bad dude know that I do not want their presence in my house. I suspect that they would understand and move on to easier pickings. 

Hopefully, that easier pickings isn't your neighbor.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Of course you have the right to defend, at least in the US you do. I would prefer to leave the house instead or make a loud noise like a gun shot to convince them to leave. 

I don't want to be in a situation where I have to take a life.  Defending your house puts you in that situation.  My answer to that is my little German shepherd dog.  She would happily let a potential bad dude know that I do not want their presence in my house. I suspect that they would understand and move on to easier pickings. 

Whatever makes you happy.  But in the neighborhood I grew up in, we had a doverman.  She was so mean that we never wanted to go near it.  But we still had intruders.  And, no, a simple shot into the air (which by the way is a huge danger to bystanders -- so don't do that -- ever) would not have scared them away.  We HAD to shoot to kill.

You can yell at them and warn them that you have a gun.  They will come in anyway.  When they come in, you can point it at them and warn them away.  They will advance anyway.  You can fire a warning shot at their feet.  They will keep coming anyway.  You can shoot them center mass.  They will still keep coming.  Only when enough bullets have been fired -- or the right bullet in the right place -- will they go down.

A man who intrudes another's home is already dedicated and committed.  All it takes is for you to be in his way for him to want to kill you and fear nothing to do so.

You may be fortunate enough that you live in a high end area with virtually no crime and the intruders are simple and stupid guys who are easily scared away by a barking dog.  But you haven't lived where I've lived.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Actually, I defy you to quote me over my last three threads where I have been personally abusive to or bullied any individual contributor. On the other hand, I have personally been accused of being a hateful bigot, being staggeringly ignorant, being a troll, being racist, sexist and ageist, and too many more other insults than I can be bothered to bring to mind. I may tend to express myself in a somewhat trenchant manner, but I have never insulted any individual, and if you all take offense at my style a) you all have very thin skins, and/or b) you all don't really want to discuss the matters I raise at all.

Oh, so that's how you're trying to get around it?  You didn't say anything about any individual, but just "people" when you were clearly talking about one person.  And "Mormons"  and "Americans".  You just attack groups, not individuals.  I get it.  Yeah.

I guess you don't know what the word "prejudice" and "stereotype" means and it's role in bigotry, do you?

24 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Either way, this level personal abuse is unjustified, unjustifiable and does not reflect well on the perpetrators concerned.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think that's absolutely true.  So, why do you do it?

Best Wishes...

Edited May 18, 2018 by Guest

[2ndRateMind]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You may be fortunate enough that you live in a high end area with virtually no crime and the intruders are simple and stupid guys who are easily scared away by a barking dog.  But you haven't lived where I've lived.

That's really quite an interesting observation, which might account in some considerable manner for the difference in attitudes to guns in the US and the UK. I live in social housing, in inner city Bristol, in quite as rough an area as the city offers. But I feel perfectly safe without a firearm. (I have a crossbow, for prepping purposes, but it's still in it's box two years after I bought it). To be sure, I tend not to go to bad places, or mix with bad people, or do bad things, but really, it has never crossed my mind that I might need a gun to defend myself. 

Maybe you all need guns, because you all have guns, because you all need guns, because you all have guns, etc, etc.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Someone take away my keyboard.

Pry it from your cold, dead fingers; eh?  

Of course, the drafters of the first amendment never contemplated an Internet.  Web fora are to a free press as nuclear bombs are to single-shot muskets . . .

Edited May 18, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That's really quite an interesting observation, which might account in some considerable manner for the difference in attitudes to guns in the US and the UK. I live in social housing, in inner city Bristol, in quite as rough an area as the city offers. But I feel perfectly safe without a firearm. (I have a crossbow, for prepping purposes, but it's still in it's box two years after I bought it). To be sure, I tend not to go to bad places, or mix with bad people, or do bad things, but really, it has never crossed my mind that I might need a gun to defend myself. 

Maybe you all need guns, because you have guns, because you all need guns, because you all have guns, etc, etc.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And that is an accurate observation.  But this was addressed by @unixknight earlier.  You have safer areas because you have a higher police to civilian ratio.  America simply doesn't have that many police.  We depend on people to defend themselves.  And it is a completely foreign concept for us to not have the right to defend our own lives.  It seems to go against nature. Don't you care about your own lives?  See, the same logic can go both ways.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

True, but the point is that gun control laws aren't the thing that will prevent violent crime.

And why didn't those inmates graduate?  

Because they chose to drop out.  The problem is very, very complex.  Improving schools would help, but it won't make any difference if the students won't show up.

People talk a lot about “fixing the inner cities”.  But the truth that none dare speak is, the inner cities don’t want to be “fixed”.  I mean, sure, they want the symptoms to go away; but they aren’t willing to take the medicine it would take to cure the disease that causes the symptoms.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Web fora are to a free press as nuclear bombs are to single-shot muskets . . .

Um, excuse me, Professor Just_A_Guy, will there be a quiz on this later?

Edited May 18, 2018 by zil

[john4truth]

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Will let others argue as to whether or not it's official - not really vested in that myself.

But that school shooting is a sad thing indeed.  

 

I hope the Church don't go there. For every violent act caused by guns 300 violent crimes are prevented by legal gun owners if you are against guns you must understand you support a position that drastically increases crime including murder, robbery, and rape. This would like a leader endorsement of a politician and would be disasterous.

[mirkwood]

@2ndRateMind

 

See carb's post above. 

 

 

 

[person0]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I would never feel proud for taking a life, even in self defense.   I would grieve quite a bit.

I would be grateful that I was able to prevent them from staining their soul with additional murderous sin; the less the better.

Edited May 18, 2018 by person0

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

@2ndRateMind

 

See carb's post above.   

 

You didn't answer my question.   Would you like us to warn you?

I have already been warned. And I am trying to be even more civil than I have been so far. So, will you encourage your people likewise? As I said elsewhere, if you all play nicely, I will play nicely.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

5 minutes ago, john4truth said:

For every violent act caused by guns 300 violent crimes are prevented by legal gun owners...

Do you have evidence for this, or is it an unsupported assertion?

Best wishes, 2RM

[john4truth]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I looked at the article and it lists 0.92/100k for the UK and 4.8/100K for the US.  The US has 5 x more homicides,  but way way way more than 5x the number of guns.  And then there is Switzerland.  their rate is 0.69/100k.  That is lower than the UK, but their gun ownership rate is quite high.  What gives?  They can kill a lot more people, but they don't...  Guess maybe it really isn't a gun issue...  at least not only a gun issue.

Stats are misleading... the crimes happen  in the United States are in cities in the United States that out law guns. Like Chicago and Washington DC.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I have three daughters.  I would rather live in a society where one doesn't worry about needing to defend themselves.  I hope the US will one day be that, but it isn't.   I support the right for people to own a gun, but I rather not own one except for hunting.  

I don't ever want to be in the situation where I need to take another's life even if they are criminals.  There are very few random murders.  I live in a city of 70k.  I remember only one murder in the 20 years I have been here.  It was not gun related.  Had the victim had a gun, he would not have been able to defend himself.  If someone breaks into my home to steel something, they can have it.  I have insurance.  I would rather pay a $1000 deductible than to live with the knowledge I took someones life even if they are a criminal.

Criminals are stills sons or daughters of God.  sons or daughters on a bad path.  I'd rather give them a chance to get on the right path than to take their life away.

I respect that; and appreciate that you aren’t out to curb the liberties of those who believe differently.

I’m not sure whether I’d be able to do it either.  It’s mostly been a nonissue for me right now because I have very young children; and I know I’m not conscientious enough to never leave a gun out where my kids might get it (they’re quite resourceful little imps).  Lately I’ve been thinking about it, though, just because a neighbor to my workweek-apartment happens to be a hotheaded wife-beating multi-felon and I’ve kind of been centrally involved in the court proceedings that got his kids taken away . . .

I suppose one issue is that you never really know whether an intruder is an assaulter or a mere burglar until he’s on his way out.  Seems to me that the most likely rule of thumb would be—if he’s on his way in, shoot.  If he’s on his way out—if he hasn’t assaulted anyone, let him go.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you have evidence for this, or is it an unsupported assertion?

Best wishes, 2RM

Google and ye shall find:  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

The most conservative estimates have 50,000 annual defensive gun uses to 35,000 gun deaths, or 1.4:1.  The more likely figure is in the range of 2 million defensive gun uses, or 57:1.  The high-end estimate is around 4.7 million, or 134:1.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[person0]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

Um, excuse me, Professor Just_A_Guy, will there be a quiz on this later?

 

You dare address another professor while attending my class?

Edited May 18, 2018 by person0