Burglar's relative says: "He could have used a warning shot first..."

[twostrokenut]

I look at it like krs.

"Let's not blame it on no pistols, no guns no gats.
Let's blame in on the consciousness of the mind holding the gat."

So why is US consciousness a little more along the lines of what you seem to link with gun numbers?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I look at it like krs.

"Let's not blame it on no pistols, no guns no gats.
Let's blame in on the consciousness of the mind holding the gat."

So why is US consciousness a little more along the lines of what you seem to link with gun numbers?

I mean, more guns is probably going to marginally increase deaths by guns. If each person owns 20 guns as opposed to every 20 people owning 1 gun, the likelihood of accidental death is increased, that's common sense. If the chance of accidental discharge is 0.1%, cleaning more guns after use is going to equal more incidences. Again, common sense.

The attitude of people is what really makes the difference. If you feel like human life of a criminal is worth nothing, you'll probably shoot them if given the chance. If you feel that people should be given at least a reasonable chance to prove they are not threatening (to your life), you probably won't shoot them before probing further.

 

[kelly4]

I mean, more guns is probably going to marginally increase deaths by guns. If each person owns 20 guns as opposed to every 20 people owning 1 gun, the likelihood of accidental death is increased, that's common sense. If the chance of accidental discharge is 0.1%, cleaning more guns after use is going to equal more incidences. Again, common sense.

The attitude of people is what really makes the difference. If you feel like human life of a criminal is worth nothing, you'll probably shoot them if given the chance. If you feel that people should be given at least a reasonable chance to prove they are not threatening (to your life), you probably won't shoot them before probing further.

How would a person know that the person coming out with a 70" TV didn't just kill the people next door and are now taking their stuff.

If a person decides to go into a residence they don't belong, they know getting shot is a possibility. Without that possibility, more people would be breaking into houses. Don't break into a house and the neighbor won't have a chance to shoot you. Seems simple.

 

[Pinworm]

How would a person know that the person coming out with a 70" TV didn't just kill the people next door and are now taking their stuff.

If a person decides to go into a residence they don't belong, they know getting shot is a possibility. Without that possibility, more people would be breaking into houses. Don't break into a house and the neighbor won't have a chance to shoot you. Seems simple.

Yerp. "B`n E before your dough freeze" people are the ones you're going to want to watch out for. the dudes that are after your TV/beats/wallet/jewelry are the guys that are typically gripping a pistol (at least). Dude in my house-holding my 70inch? is going to be the dude that's going to get peppered in the chest with some salt rock.

It's a reaction sort of thing. But, having some amount of common sense helps.

Just my opinion. Yes, I hear how it sounds.

 

[Beefbisquit]

How would a person know that the person coming out with a 70" TV didn't just kill the people next door and are now taking their stuff.

If a person decides to go into a residence they don't belong, they know getting shot is a possibility. Without that possibility, more people would be breaking into houses. Don't break into a house and the neighbor won't have a chance to shoot you. Seems simple.

I'm saying reasonable threat, my man.

Even if they killed the neighbours there's no way to know that, IMO it's not worth risking my own life (leaving my family without a father/husband) to apprehend a criminal that has already ended the life of my neighbour. Maybe if you heard gunshots, it might be justified, because you'd know shit went down.... but if not, why would you assume there's been a murder or assault?Killing the criminal isn't going to bring my friend (neighbour) back, even if you assume the worst case scenario, and getting myself killed is counter-productive too. If I saw them headed my way, I'd cap their asses, but lets be honest that's not likely...

Even if you're Joe Horn.

 

[desert dude]

I might shoot a mother fucker in the leg for robbing my neightbour too, if I felt the need to confront them, and felt threatened, and made a verbal command, ... which they violated. The thing is, these are extenuating circumstances.... I'd rather take a picture of the escape vehicle, or persons, and accurately describe what happened, then kill someone. It's a moral thing, not something I can rationally expect everyone to adhere to, BUT seeing someone escape with ahandbag from an UNINHABITAED house, seems harsh, when considering killing a mother fucker. If my neighbours car was home, and I knew they were home and watched people enter their house, it might be different. The point is, the end game (consequences) have to at least rationally equal the potential threat. Otherwise, you're a psychopath, or at least morally bankrupt.

I guess I'm an optimist, I try to look for the good (within reason) in a person, whereas some people just see the immediate bad a person brings to a situation. This is where some people say "Shoot", and I say "I'd rather not shoot unless necessary".

Crown what? The monarchy hasn't told, (or ordered) Canada to do anything in... at least my lifetime? Not sure what your point is.

Although I have a degree in philosophy I hardly regard myself as a sophist. I do find it pertinent to understand why any side of an argument feels the way they do. Sometimes, the emotional response to a topic can seem as important as a rational one....

All boiled down, what you are saying is "every situation is different. I would shoot a person if the situation warranted, and I would not if the situation did not warrant it". I agree with that, and that is what the law says, even in the US. The castle doctrine simply says that use of lethal force is presumed to be warranted in certain circumstances.

The US is one of the safest countries in the world as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones. Those war zones all have something in common. They are all in cities, and they are all Democratic strongholds, and they are all poverty pockets. In general, the US is much safer than the UK, and most of Europe. You are no more likely to get your skull bashed in, or robbed, or murdered in the US than in Canada as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones.

 

[Beefbisquit]

All boiled down, what you are saying is "every situation is different. I would shoot a person if the situation warranted, and I would not if the situation did not warrant it". I agree with that, and that is what the law says, even in the US. The castle doctrine simply says that use of lethal force is presumed to be warranted in certain circumstances.

The US is one of the safest countries in the world as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones. Those war zones all have something in common. They are all in cities, and they are all Democratic strongholds, and they are all poverty pockets. In general, the US is much safer than the UK, and most of Europe. You are no more likely to get your skull bashed in, or robbed, or murdered in the US than in Canada as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones.

See, I believe it says more than that.

It seems like it gives unnecessary force to individuals based on virtually no threat posed upon them. The law(s) (in some places) doesn't say; if a threatening person is thought to have firearm, lethal force may be used, or if your life is thought to be in imminent danger you may use lethal force.... it says if someone tries to steal from you, comes on your property, etc., or worse, you can cap a mother fucker. I just can't agree with that. It doesn't make sense. The spectrum for what an individual can shoot someone for is too great.

 

[twostrokenut]

The US is one of the safest countries in the world as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones.

don't they have hand gun bans in common?

 

[Beefbisquit]

don't they have hand gun bans in common?

See, I don't believe in handgun bans. That's just dumb.

But I think it's pertinent to have a rule similar to; If you want to carry a handgun around in public, there are stringent restrictions placed upon you. Seriously, if you want to carry a gun in public, and risk the publics safety with your gun, why should you not be held responsible? Only irresponsible people need fear.... Maintain attendance at a range, and practice! Prove you are capable to hold other peoples' lives in your hands! Afterall, when asking to carry, and use a firearm ina public setting, you have to look further than your own nose.

EDIT: In your own home, I believe restrictions should be limited to storage, and safe handling. If you're not using your firearm, cleaning it, or have it available for immediate use (in the room with you for protection) it should be made safe (reasonably) and kept stored. Wanna be safe at night? Keep a loaded .44mag on your bedside table, but in the morning when you and the Mrs. head to work, and the kiddies go off to school, lock the mother fucker up. Kids having a sleep over and the babysitter is over? Lock the mother fucker up.

If people were held accountable for preventable deaths easier, people would be forced to use more common sense.

 

[Pinworm]

The US is one of the safest countries in the world as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones. Those war zones all have something in common. They are all in cities, and they are all Democratic strongholds, and they are all poverty pockets. In general, the US is much safer than the UK, and most of Europe. You are no more likely to get your skull bashed in, or robbed, or murdered in the US than in Canada as long as you stay out of the inner city war zones.

The fact that big cities lean blue is irrelevant. People everywhere break into shit, and burglarize. US safe? yewgotjokesbro....

 

[twostrokenut]

See, I don't believe in handgun bans. That's just dumb.

But I think it's pertinent to have a rule similar to; If you want to carry a handgun around in public, there are stringent restrictions placed upon you. Seriously, if you want to carry a gun in public, and risk the publics safety with your gun, why should you not be held responsible? Only irresponsible people need fear.... Maintain attendance at a range, and practice! Prove you are capable to hold other peoples' lives in your hands! Afterall, when asking to carry, and use a firearm ina public setting, you have to look further than your own nose.

I agree except with the need for a rule or law on it.
Open carry is quite legal in lots of places.
Stringent restrictions placed does not a safer place make, notice the criminal abides by no restrictions.
I would say the restrictions lower the odds of another good layer of protection from the crazies while waiting on the cops.

I agree on accountability, but there are already rules and laws for all this in discussion here in the US.

 

[UncleBuck]

I agree except with the need for a rule or law on it.
Open carry is quite legal in lots of places.
Stringent restrictions placed does not a safer place make, notice the criminal abides by no restrictions.
I would say the restrictions lower the odds of another good layer of protection from the crazies while waiting on the cops.

I agree on accountability, but there are already rules and laws for all this in discussion here in the US.

when was the last gun massacre in australia?

thanks for your prompt reply, TR00F3R.

 

[twostrokenut]

I guess I'm an optimist, I try to look for the good (within reason) in a person, whereas some people just see the immediate bad a person brings to a situation. This is where some people say "Shoot", and I say "I'd rather not shoot unless necessary".

Idk man I think I'm an optimist too. Everyone gets a gun unless they proved to abuse the right by violating another right or rights.....even so far as theft.
No regulation needed. A gun is the great equalizer, makes a 90lb hottie equal in power to a 250lb would be rapist.

I don't believe in denying someones right to defend themselves so whimsically.....like an IQ test or criminal history.....seems a path to eugenics to me.

Someone convicted of drug charges for example, gets out of prison and now can't lawfully go hunting?
That's bullshit.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I agree except with the need for a rule or law on it.
Open carry is quite legal in lots of places.
Stringent restrictions placed does not a safer place make, notice the criminal abides by no restrictions.
I would say the restrictions lower the odds of another good layer of protection from the crazies while waiting on the cops.

I agree on accountability, but there are already rules and laws for all this in discussion here in the US.

I think this is where I differ from a lot of people. Restrictions make people stringent, even just for policy sake. Stringent people think more about consequences and actions, and are less likely to get 'uppity' and cap a mother fucker over "peanuts".

Legal responsibly 'forces' inaction on (some) people that are needlessly violent. It also forces (some) people who are needlessly violent to teach their kids (or others) not to be needlessly violent for fear of legal repercussions. (I understand that some criminals will still be criminals regardless of laws, but some won't).

The thing is without some sort of repercussion or at least perceived repercussion, most people won't adhere to any type of change. Families who have kept a loaded pistol in the kitchen drawer for 100 years will continue to do so, and teach their kids to do the same. No one learns anything, behaviors are not changed. At least if after the fact people were held responsible for storage and handling practices, it would curb theft, and the ease of procuring stolen firearms.

 

[twostrokenut]

when was the last gun massacre in australia?

thanks for your prompt reply, TR00F3R.

um 96 Port Arthur?
Your welcome Mr. Galt.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Idk man I think I'm an optimist too. Everyone gets a gun unless they proved to abuse the right by violating another right or rights.....even so far as theft.
No regulation needed. A gun is the great equalizer, makes a 90lb hottie equal in power to a 250lb would be rapist.

I don't believe in denying someones right to defend themselves so whimsically.....like an IQ test or criminal history.....seems a path to eugenics to me.

Someone convicted of drug charges for example, gets out of prison and now can't lawfully go hunting?
That's bullshit.

This is where shit gets tricky. IMO, the government should have public ranges. Federally owned and operate ranges that don't require membership, and are open 7 days a week.

People who want to have a CCW should have to maintain regular membership (whatever that is decided to be).

 

[twostrokenut]

I think this is where I differ from a lot of people. Restrictions make people stringent, even just for policy sake. Stringent people think more about consequences and actions, and are less likely to get 'uppity' and cap a mother fucker over "peanuts".

Legal responsibly 'forces' inaction on (some) people that are needlessly violent. It also forces (some) people who are needlessly violent to teach their kids (or others) not to be needlessly violent for fear of legal repercussions. (I understand that some criminals will still be criminals regardless of laws, but some won't).

The thing is without some sort of repercussion or at least perceived repercussion, most people won't adhere to any type of change. Families who have kept a loaded pistol in the kitchen drawer for 100 years will continue to do so, and teach their kids to do the same. No one learns anything, behaviors are not changed. At least if after the fact people were held responsible for storage and handling practices, it would curb theft, and the ease of procuring stolen firearms.

Yes but legalities dude sometimes prompt reckless behavior....rich kids and DUI's come to mind.
Crazies are crazy. No statutory law can change it.

Getting "uppity" and busting caps for "peanuts" is cultural.
Its a pride thing.
Its bee around since before guns. Question is, why has this culture not fizzled out over time given its lack of success?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Yes but legalities dude sometimes prompt reckless behavior....rich kids and DUI's come to mind.
Crazies are crazy. No statutory law can change it.

Would you say crazies are the majority or people, or the minority?

Getting "uppity" and busting caps for "peanuts" is cultural.
Its a pride thing.
Its bee around since before guns. Question is, why has this culture not fizzled out over time given its lack of success?

I agree. If I'm speaking honestly, as a foreigner, it's one of the things I see as a problem with the USA in particular. It's the attitude towards guns, not guns themselves. As such, it's the attitude of the public towards guns that has shown the propensity in guns ownership.

Unless the attitude towards guns changes on a whole, I can't see the death rates changing either.

 

[twostrokenut]

This is where shit gets tricky. IMO, the government should have public ranges. Federally owned and operate ranges that don't require membership, and are open 7 days a week.

People who want to have a CCW should have to maintain regular membership (whatever that is decided to be).

What of us rural folk who were raised plinking and hunting?
Our range is the back yard.
Our guns are given down from generation to generation.

Why should we pay for such an idea for urbanites that never shot and practiced with their new dick extensions?

What of the CCW issued by an individual that is his own government?
The guy who carries, and never has a problem because him responsible and never has issue?
How do we account for the success of this?

 

[UncleBuck]

um 96 Port Arthur?
Your welcome Mr. Galt.

did they happen to do anything between then and now?