Related Information to Having A Gun In The House

Having A Gun In The House - Page 8

Okay, lets stick to the topic here, guns in the home, I think it is acceptable.

When someone is breaking into your house intent on theft, it is too late to be proactive.

Okay, point made, but what about veterans of the Vietnam war, I know a couple who can give you many upon many stories.

Yes, if a criminal shoots me he takes away my right to live as well. But, if you break into my house, you are already intent on taking away my freedom, and possibly the lives of my family and me. Therefore, I believe that you don't deserve the rights you have. Don't quote this out of context later. I believe that certain people don't deserve to live. I will never go out on a crusade to murder them, but if I am attacked I will fight to my dying breath to protect my family.

Now for the culture debate.
You said, arhvic, and I quote...

then you said,

Yes, There are countries out there that have a better record, but there are also just as many countries out there that do nothing but exploit and torture their people. Now stop taking this so personally, he never said your country is a bad place to live. Just that many countries are a bad place to live.

Edited: Tastanagee on 8th Dec, 2005 - 3:48pm

House The Gun Having

This is not true. I think we should clear of stereotyping whole populations and cultures on the basis of what their corrupt leaders do. That is my basic point.

I don't judge Americans because of what Bush does, that would be ridiculous. So why must Nighthawk continually defame Arabs in this topic and several others because of what their leaders are doing?

Tastanagee I take your point about being able to protect yourself. I think where we differ is I don't agree that everyone having guns is a good way to do this. Not all criminals who rob houses want to kill people. I think you will find the a large proportion of criminals who rob places do it for the cash, not for blood. Maybe it is different in the US?

Anyway I've made my case and anything more I add would just be repetition.

Having A Gun In The House History & Civil Business Politics

Well, I'm back - for a bit.

What I said in an earlier post was that if Johnny came into school, as a first grader (about 6 years old), and commented to his teacher that his dad had taken him out to a gun range and taught him about guns, that the Child Protective Services would be called on that father - no matter what it was that was really taught there! So, if the Dad was teaching little Johnny that guns are dangerous tools, etc, etc, etc, he would still have to answer to government agencies about it.

How much do you really know about the statistics concerning firearms? I gave this site before, apparently you didn't read any of it. So, I will quote pertinent information.

Here is another little bit.

Seems that statistics DO show that rape is avoided by the use of guns.

Sure you can! It is a very well documented fact, that if criminals even THINK that their victims MIGHT be armed, that they will change their behavior! And, if that doesn't work, instant death sentence for criminals who attempt to rape, burglarize, kidnap or murder sure stops those criminals.

EXCUSE ME!? Who do you think is carrying all the bombs into Israel? It has been happening almost DAILY, 14, 15, 16 year-old young men AND young women, wearing bombs! Do you even READ the news about what is happening in Israel? No, I am NOT going to go do the research for you.

How can I be as bad as the perpetrator, if I am ONLY using a gun to protect my family, my life, and my property, from someone who is intent on harm?

1. If you take away my ability to protect myself and my family, then you take away the most basic liberty of all. If YOU have a gun, it is highly unlikely that someone else will be shooting at you.

2. The Columbine monsters were just that - MONSTERS! What does Columbine have to do with the desire for someone to have a gun in their home to protect themselves and their families from OTHER monsters?

Offtopic but, QUOTE There obviously is a lot you don't know about what your administration is doing and has done in the past if you believe that Americans are known for valuing life. So don't parade your culture as being the standard of human values, because I promise you there are many other countries with a much better record. Thank you, again, for proving my point. You set yourself up as judge of us - our culture, our foreign policy, etc. Then you judge ME for judging that some cultures are undesirable - at least to me and mine. As for my judging of Arabs, I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC GROUPS! I continually point out that the problem lies in the Palestinian leadership, the radical Islamic (Islamofascist) groups, etc. These are the worst offenders in human rights in the world today!

Thank you, again, for proving my point. You set yourself up as judge of us - our culture, our foreign policy, etc. Then you judge ME for judging that some cultures are undesirable - at least to me and mine.

As for my judging of Arabs, I AM ONLY TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC GROUPS! I continually point out that the problem lies in the Palestinian leadership, the radical Islamic (Islamofascist) groups, etc. These are the worst offenders in human rights in the world today!

Page 8 House The Gun Having

Nighthawk I would ask you to stop trying to discredit my character or commentate on what you think I am trying to do with this debate. Because you don't me or what I am thinking. Lets keep this debate about the topic please.

I'm not judging your culture. I don't hold American people responsible for the decisions of your politicians. I certainly don't believe the Bush Administration is representative of the US culture. But I do know enough about US and international politics to cast an opinion on your country's foreign policy record. And what is undesirable to you might not be to other people in your country.

When you use the term Palestinians, as you have done throughout, you are talking about a whole population. And judging by your libellous remarks you don't really know that culture very well. If you honestly believe the Palestinian leadership are the worst offenders of human rights maybe you ought to visit half of Africa, North Korea, China and several other countries. The radical Islamists are such a small minority in these countries.

The statistics you keep posting are compilled by pro-gun lobbyists. Don't you have a crime fighting authority or government department that has researched this area? Furthermore, how can you possibly measure whether or not someone is about to murder or rape you? I would like to know how these statistics were compiled.

One statistic you fail to bring up is the sheer volume of gun-related deaths per capita in the US compared with other developed countries. More guns equals more deaths, that is a fact. Maybe you could also compare the incidence of rape per capita in the US with non-gun countries and see if there is a significant difference. That would be a good way of proving guns prevent rape.

I'd be a bit worried if the average person thought a burglar deserved to be instantly killed. Do you propose we should kill people before they commit a crime?

I would also like to know how many criminals are injured or killed by civilians. Criminals are still human beings and really ought to be dealt with by the law.

No, it hasn't been happening almost daily. It never has been, even at its worst. There are attacks in Iraq on a daily basis, often unreported by the media, but certainly not in Israel. The people who have been carrying out these attacks are not all 14, 15 and 16 year olds. Get your facts right.

I read more news on Israel and other parts of the world each day than you would, it's my job. Maybe you can draw a comparison with the bombing raids Israel launches at Palestinians. I think the Israelis would win somehow. But of course, any Palestinian who dies is a suspected terrorist, while all Israeli deaths are innocent civilians.

And in doing so you are taking away someone elses life and ruining their family. Should we act like criminals to fight crime?

Let me clarify this again. The Columbine massacre shows us that when guns are easy to obtain, it is a lot more likely they will fall into the wrong hands, who were children in this case. If guns weren't legalised Columbine may have been prevented. You can't protect the world from monsters, guns or no guns. But you can make it harder for them to get hold of these deadly weapons.

House The Gun Having

(from Arvhic)
And in doing so you are taking away someone elses life and ruining their family. Should we act like criminals to fight crime?

How can you say that defending myself is acting like a criminal? Are you saying that to act in any type of self-defense makes all victims just as bad as the criminals? What if I used a baseball bat to protect myself or my child from someone attacking us? Would that make me as bad as the criminal intent on harming us?

Or is it only if I use a gun to defend myself that I'm acting in a criminal fashion?

Or are you saying that victims have no right to defend themselves at all, that we should just allow criminals to do whatever they want, in order for us all to behave in a civilized manner?

Having A Gun In The House

Nobody has the right to shoot anybody else. That is a clear violation of basic human rights. There are circumstances where this is within the law, when officers shoot at a criminal for instance. Of course people will try to defend themselves in a situation where they feel threatened. But you don't have a "right" to take someone else's life even if you are doing this out of self defence. This isn't about who is better or worse in such a situation.

And I don't really care what the weapon is. If you kill someone you kill someone.

Criminals are called criminals because they break a serious law. If you deliberately shoot someone you also break the law and become a criminal. Why should we stoop to the level of violent criminals? Yet again I would like to suggest that not all criminals want to kill people. So why should we give them an "instant death sentence"?

I understand your point of view about protecting yourself and your family. I don't have a problem with that in principle and I would try to do the same thing (without a gun). But it is not your right to use violence to protect yourself, just as it is not mine. That is why we have trained police officers.

And this whole issue is not the crux of my opposition to gun laws. I don't beleive guns should be legalised because more guns = more deaths. And it is so easy for guns to fall into the hands of children, or people who shouldn't use them.

When civilians produce a firearm in the face of danger it just inflames the situation. Sure the odd criminal might be scared away, there is no doubt about that. But plenty more won't be, and someone is likely to get hurt.

And there is always the danger of children getting hold of these weapons and having tragic accidents.

Having Gun The House - Page 8

I can't believe you just said that. Sorry, but I don't have a trained police officer handy at all times to protect me and my family. In fact, police officers are not about protection at all, but about enforcing the law.

I absolutely DO have the right to use whatever means necessary, including violence, to protect myself. How can you say that I don't have that right? In the face of violence, what other right could I possibly have, other than to use violence in self-defense?

Having Gun The House Politics Business Civil & History - Page 8

The only time it is okay for an officer to shoot at a criminal is when a criminal shoots first, then the officer is taken off-duty for about a week, and internal affairs conducts an investigation. And if there is the slightest doubt that firing the pistol was the last resort then the officer loses his badge.

You are right. If a person is robbing my house and doesn't have a gun or a knife, I get arrested for murder because I used excessive force. But if he has a gun I am perfectly within my legal right to shoot at him.

I have to agree with you on this one, I believe in the death penalty, but it can be taken too far.

So what would you do? Try to beg and plead for your life.

Most people who break into homes either do it when no one is home or when the occupants are asleep. These criminals don't want confrontation. As soon as they even suspect someone is home or awake, then they leave quite quickly.

And about the Columbine tragedy. If they didn't have guns, they would have used the pipe bombs they had plans for. I hate to say this, but better a few deaths by gun than entire classrooms wiped out by bombs.

Edited: Tastanagee on 11th Dec, 2005 - 8:29am