Do Guns Kill People or Do People Kill People?

I disagree, I would assume that by using the basic 10% rule, 90% of the Law Eforcement Officers in the United States are great.

The problem is that the system itself is abused. If someone has trespassed, and is in the act of stealing, IT'S YOUR job to take care of it. Scare them away, and if they don't leave, be prepared to defend your home.

It's so bad in places like L.A. that the new s.o.p. is to ignore burglar alarms unless there is proof someone is in danger.

*edit
[image=http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i134/hoppinglark/IMG_1881.jpg]
[image=http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i134/hoppinglark/3009shootb.gif]
They can't say they weren't warned...

 

Again: you can have your bike registered.
You can also put out an insurance on it.
You can lock it up really well.

All kinds of options that I haven't heard you two about.

All I hear you say is that your police force isn't up to it. Why not fix that, instead of slide deeper in a violent culture?

 

In 2005, I waited outside Grauman's in Hollywood for Episode III. There was one day where, about 3 in the morning, a homeless guy came up to the few of us there and was threatening violence and I think he was even the one that actually tried to grab someone at some point. It took LAPD over an hour to arrive. We, thankfully, had a few guys from the line that were able to resolve the situation.

Waiting an hour for cops is no good when you're in danger at a given moment.

 

You aren't reading what he's said.

He didn't advocate arming everyone. In fact, he has specifically said that certain people should not be armed (i.e. criminals and the mentally unstable). He hasn't advocated forcing everyone eligible to own a gun to have one either.

All he has said is that those who are physically and mentally capable of owning a gun, and who are not prohibited through prior criminal activity, should be allowed to own and carry a gun if they choose to.

To use his bike theft example, if you see someone trying to steal your bike, would you try to stop them? Would you yell at them to leave your bike alone? How about try to chase them away from it? If they turned aggressive and started threatening you, what would you do?

He wasn't advocating shooting someone for taking his bike. He was advocating having a gun so that when he confronts someone taking his bike, he can defend himself if the person tried to attack him in response to the confrontation.

How is that any different from me taking Tae Kwon Do so that if I am ever attacked I can defend myself better? If someone were stealing my bike, and I confronted them to try and stop them, would you have a problem with me using my martial arts training to protect myself? If not, then why would you have a problem with using a gun to protect yourself in the same situation? You can kill someone with either one, and not everyone is physically capable of doing martial arts.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, you don't go all martial arts on someone stealing your bike either.
You call the cops.

 

you call the cops?
arrival time is HOW LONG?

I guess if you had a bacon grease fire in you kitchen you should run out of the house until the fire department arrives.
If you fall off your bike and get a skinned knee it's time to go to the ER?

I don't know if Florida has a bike registration
I have home owners insurance but the bike would most likely be under the deductible.
I have the locks but didn't use them because it was in the cariage of my home INSIDE a screen door that has a little lock.
I mentioned this already.

Police do not have the ability to teleport, no human being can respond that fast, there is absolutely no amount of training that can make up for being IN the situation yourself. You know who is the victim, You know who the perp is.


Like I already stated I decided to replace the light on the back porch with one that is motion activatied, I also bought two barrel bolts for the screen door and a deadbolt for the door to the laundry room that is on the porch. I will be installing them today.

 

We're talking, here, about the general idea of citizens carrying guns. Not about Florida, not about the Fire Department. You can't denounce a general idea because something is mismanaged in your neighborhood.

If cop response time isn't good, you shouldn't sit down and discard them altogether. Then they fail to do their duty and it needs to be looked into. But it's a different issue.

[image=http://eit.utoledo.edu/LSG/Images/thumbs_up.jpg]

Good work! Hope that'll do it.

 

Well, its also that police show up AFTER the fact. The case I'd mentioned in here re: the father of one of my brother's friends killing one thief and injuring the other was because they were going to kill him. Police COULDN'T have gotten there to simply fix the situation before it happened.

 

Uh if we went by what you said that means if soomeone breaks to my home I should let them do what ever they want and just wait for the police to get there.

 

Yeah, expecting the police to get anywhere in a timely fashion in order to make a difference is a bit naive.

 

I didn't say that you immediately attack them. I said that you confront them. There is a difference.

For example, if you saw someone stealing your bike, wouldn't you at least call out to them something like "Hey, what are you doing with my bike?", or "Hey, that's my bike!"?

At that point, many criminals would run away to avoid being caught or identified. However, some criminals would instead turn aggressive and attack you. In a situation like that, what do you do? You defend yourself.

If it were me, I would challenge them, and if they chose to attack me instead of run, I would use my martial arts skills to defend myself (blocking their punches and then doing everything in my power to render them a non-threat - unconscious or dead, if need be).

SweetPea wasn't saying that if you see someone stealing your bike you shoot them on the spot. He was saying that if you see someone trying to steal your bike, you challenge them (as described above). If they choose to attack you, you draw your gun (which by itself is usually enough to get a criminal to run away, according to many studies). It is only if they decide to continue the attack that you are in a position to use lethal force.

That is the biggest flaw in your argument. You keep assuming that a responsible gun owner (i.e. the law-abiding type) would immediately jump to using lethal force in such a situation simply because they have a gun. That's not how things work.

A gun is a tool for self-defense, just as much as martial arts training is. Just with my limited training (I'm actually still a white belt about to get my gold belt), I know of at least four ways that I could kill someone with just my bare hands and feet. If someone attacks me, I will use any of my skills to defend myself, including those moves if necessary. How is owning a gun and knowing how to use it any different?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Heh, KK's never been in a fight. My advice is to kick them in the junk, headbutt them (because that has a huge psychological effect in addition to hurting like hell), ranting and screaming, and going for the throat. Martial arts and crap are great, but so is making a grown man cry by kicking his balls into his throat.

Trust me.

E_S

 

Yes, but it's nice to know how to get maximum force applied to the more sensitive areas.

Like I said, I'll use anything at my disposal to render my opponent a non-threat. A good front or side kick to the groin, followed by a side kick to the kneecap does wonders for making a wannabe thug reconsider their desire to attack someone. (Remember, your legs are far more powerful than your arms and give you far more range. Kicking is so much more effective than punching.)

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't assume shinola. It's the 'responsible' gun owner I have a problem with. For every ten responsible gun owners there's one irresponsible one. And he'll just shoot the head off a bike thief.

 

It's the 'responsible' gun owner I have a problem with. For every ten responsible gun owners there's one irresponsible one. And he'll just shoot the head off a bike thief.

And I completely understand your point about responsibility, but this is where you keep loosing me in the debate. Who would simply shoot the head off a bike thief? The person that does so would have to justify their action, no different than any other situation. Which angle do you actually have a problem with? The person or the tool?

Again, what if someone is a professional boxer and punches that thief in the face, causing him to lapse into a coma? What if a someone grabs an axe, which up until that point has only been used to chop wood, and cleaves the thief's head in two? The axe wielder would be scrutinized no less than the pistol user. The examples can go on and on, but the justifications would be based on the circumstances, not the instrument itself. What you are describing is an aspect of human nature not specifically related to a firearm.

I understand not being familiar with a firearm/choosing not to use one/etc.. it's the demonizing that I don't understand. I think it's related to the prior example that was given in this thread regarding the biathlon. --how the biathlon was described as "bad" because it used the same instrument that could be used to rob people, as if such an athlete would become an uncontrollable killer simply because he is holding a rifle.

It's just interesting, two opposite views of the same subject.

 

He's got a point though. Its why we shouldn't have alcohol legal, because for every ten responsible drinkers, there is one irresponsible drinker that endangers people's lives.

 

Sure, doesn't that represent a trade off of sorts? That's why I agree that it's an aspect of human nature that isn't limited to a specific outlet.

It's a theme that keeps coming up in every reiteration of this thread. From a sheer numbers standpoint, firearms deaths are way down the mortality list. Wouldn't it make sense then, to place even more restrictions on alcohol, butter/cream, automobiles, lighters, etc... But even in countries that have full restrictions on firearms, the same level of reciprocity isn't seen. Of course, the actual issue is much more complicated, but by the same token, it's not fair to dismiss the firearm issue by simply claiming that they can be misused and so are bad.

 

And if I can add:

Also, you are aware that the rape rate in Australia is more than 2 and a half times the rape rate in the U.S., right?

This is another aspect that is so interesting to me when we discussed it before. It's been said that even before Australia's strict firearms laws, Australians generally didn't view the gun as a tool for self defense, so even after the restrictions, defensive uses weren't impacted.

But what I think we are seeing here are two sides of the same coin of human nature.

In the US, I wonder how many rapes were prevented by the intended victim using a firearm, which would then show up in the gun violence category? Less rape, more gun violence. In Australia, I wonder how many sexual assaults are carried out because of the lack of a self defense mentality? Less gun violence, more rape.

We may never see the stats on this.* But what it illustrates is a shift of categories based on collective norms.

*=and what I'm trying to illustrate isn't based specifically on sexual assault, but rather differing views on the individual and self defense.

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to illustrate there. Its fully possible, also, to simply scare someone off if they think you do have a gun, or that some people won't commit crimes, or will do so less frequently, from the risk of someone being armed. You seem to be saying that the only instance in which a gun is used to protect someone is when it was used to kill, and that ignores a large range of ways in which a gun could prevent a crime.

 

Indeed, and perhaps even in most threads here in the Senate. What's good for people, and what is not, and if it's not - should it be banned?

And of the countries we live in, NONE of them have a well-thought out stance, comes to that. It just sorta grew the way it is. What have we got? Alcohol, drugs, guns, pollution, WMDs, sex on TV, crime on TV... The policies towards these different aspects of society just don't match up, so we're raising hypocrites all across the board.

 

What on earth does sex or crime on TV have to do with WMDs? What do either of those things have to do with pollution? How on earth do you create a policy that "matches up" between topics that have nothing to do with each other?

Or by saying that they "don't match up" do you simply mean that they don't match up with what you want?

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, I'm not saying that.
Sigh.
Do I really need to elaborate?
Or are you just being hostile.

 

Then say what you mean.

You gave a laundry list of unrelated topics and said that our policy on them doesn't "match up". How on earth do you "match up" unrelated topics? There is absolutely nothing that pollution has to do with sex on TV, nor with WMDs. It really came across as though you just took a laundry list of policies/topics that you disagree with and complained about all of them at once.

Since they had nothing to do with each other, the only common theme would seem to be that you disagree with the status quo on those topics, hence my question.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Okay: we got a certain set of morals.
Some stuff is prohibited, some stuff is banned, and some stuff you can get at your local grocery. Most topics on the front page here deal with why something should or should not be banned or prohibited. Is all I'm saying. I wasn't saying any of this stuff is right or wrong (not this time!) - it was just an observation.