[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44753074]dedicated criminals will still be able to get their hands on weapons, sure, but are they the majority? would your common mugger really go to such lengths to get their hands on a gun? im sure itd at least stop the one guy who snaps and decides to shoot up a school, or kill his wife when he finds out shes having an affair, etc etc[/QUOTE]Sure, and it very well may allow many more who may have otherwise been stopped.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44753079]Sure, and it very well may allow many more who may have otherwise been stopped.[/QUOTE]
i doubt those who are willing to shoot you on sight are more numerous than your average mugger. there's a reason they're called "common criminals" after all
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44753031]Protection of ones property is typically considered a part of self-defense.
[/quote]
Well, then I argue that it shouldn't. Would you rather shoot a guy or lose your TV?
[quote]
[url]http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol71/iss4/15/[/url]
[/quote]
I have limited time, and this paper doesn't (from what I can read) any hard statistics - it refers to a lot of different sources for its claims, but doesn't seem to show any of them. His sources are mostly himself as well (his name is mentioned 45 times throughout the paper, mostly in sources), though, and he seems to be quite heavily biased. He writes for Fox News as a columnist as well, it would seem. I'm in school right now, and I can't really search for better sources myself, if you could procide another it would be great. Also, I know the article in the OP is about concealed carry, but I'm discussing the broader use of guns as a means of defense.
[quote]
I find it preferable to allow the innocent the means to safety and security. In many areas that have SYG laws, you have to declare you are armed and give the perpetrator time to flee. You can't be like the guy who made his home look abandoned and ambushed and executed the two kids.[/QUOTE]
My point is that a gun isn't necessarily a means of safety and security in the big picture. Sure, you might fend (or scare) off an attacker, but you put yourself at considerable risk.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44753359]Well, then I argue that it shouldn't. Would you rather shoot a guy or lose your TV?[/QUOTE]I'd rather defend myself. If that means the assailant gets shot, that is unfortunate but rests on them. And don't try to turn this in to some stupid "You value things more than human life sociopath!" crap either, its dumb and any reasonable person will see through it.
[quote]I have limited time, and this paper doesn't (from what I can read) any hard statistics - it refers to a lot of different sources for its claims, but doesn't seem to show any of them. His sources are mostly himself as well (his name is mentioned 45 times throughout the paper, mostly in sources), though, and he seems to be quite heavily biased. He writes for Fox News as a columnist as well, it would seem. I'm in school right now, and I can't really search for better sources myself, if you could procide another it would be great. Also, I know the article in the OP is about concealed carry, but I'm discussing the broader use of guns as a means of defense. [/quote]They're in there, its footnote citations. He's not doing a specific study, its about a multitude of them which is mentioned pretty heavily.
[QUOTE]My point is that a gun isn't necessarily a means of safety and security in the big picture. Sure, you might fend (or scare) off an attacker, but you put yourself at considerable risk.[/QUOTE]And you'd be wrong.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44753496]I'd rather defend myself. If that means the assailant gets shot, that is unfortunate but rests on them[/QUOTE]
lmao you'd rather kill a person than get your tv stolen and you really don't think that's fucked up?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44753531]lmao you'd rather kill a person than get your tv stolen and you really don't think that's fucked up?[/QUOTE]What a pitiful argument.
there's nothing stupid about not wanting to kill someone
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44753558]there's nothing stupid about not wanting to kill someone[/QUOTE]No, but there is about making bad ad hominem attacks. You have an odd way of admitting you can not make a reasoned argument.
what
im really not arguing anything im just saying thats fucked up
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
i'm sorry if reacting to what someone says is a "bad ad hominem attack", i'll get my SH spirit back on and present solid arguments with fancy latin words that i learned on the internet
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44753496]I'd rather defend myself. If that means the assailant gets shot, that is unfortunate but rests on them. And don't try to turn this in to some stupid "You value things more than human life sociopath!" crap either, its dumb and any reasonable person will see through it.
[/quote]
How is my argument automatically dumb? Of course you have the right to defend yourself, but where do you draw the line? Is it enough that the guy is in your house taking your stuff?
[quote]
They're in there, its footnote citations. He's not doing a specific study, its about a multitude of them which is mentioned pretty heavily.
[/quote]
As I've said, they're mostly references to his other stuff, and he seems fairly biased. If you could provide a tangible statistic showing a drop in crime after the passing of concealed carry legislation, that would be very nice indeed.
[quote]
And you'd be wrong.[/QUOTE]
Uhmm.. okay? Now I know you're complaining about ad hominems, but a simple "you're wrong" is really no better.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44753531]lmao you'd rather kill a person than get your tv stolen and you really don't think that's fucked up?[/QUOTE]
I'd rather kill a person than let him move around unopposed, potentially armed, in my house, with unknown intentions, putting me and my family members at risk. If it turns out later that all he wanted was my TV and then would have been on his merry way, too bad, hindsight is 20/20 but I'm under no obligation to take unnecessary risks when somebody else is breaking into my home.
You'll find, if you do any research, that in the US shooting a robber in the back as they flee is generally considered criminal and punished, because yes, shooting someone simply because they're leaving with your television is wrong. That's entirely irrelevant to the point.
[QUOTE=catbarf;44753904]
You'll find, if you do any research, that in the US shooting a robber in the back as they flee is generally considered criminal and punished, because yes, shooting someone simply because they're leaving with your television is wrong. That's entirely irrelevant to the point.[/QUOTE]
hows that irrelevant when that was literally the situation that was proposed? "would you rather shoot a guy or have your tv stolen", not "would you shoot someone who may be armed and may want to kill you and steal your tv"
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44754103]hows that irrelevant when that was literally the situation that was proposed? "would you rather shoot a guy or have your tv stolen", not "would you shoot someone who may be armed and may want to kill you and steal your tv"[/QUOTE]No it wasn't. Not if he'd run away or not. If they're there, it is consider self defense in most places.
How do you know the guy just wants to steal your TV? If you know without a doubt hes going to take your TV and leave that is absolutely a different situation but its entirely impossible to say its that predictable. How do you know hes not going to rape your girlfriend or daughter? How do you know he isn't going to hold you at gunpoint if you let him move around your house without defending yourself or your family? I don't get why you people are trusting criminals so much.
I'm not saying that you need to execute the guy. You do protect you and your family until there is no longer a threat and that doesn't mean you have to kill them. I don't know about you but I'd rather live to regret using lethal force than have myself or my family harmed.
[QUOTE=Dr McNinja;44754969]How do you know the guy just wants to steal your TV? If you know without a doubt hes going to take your TV and leave that is absolutely a different situation but its entirely impossible to say its that predictable. How do you know hes not going to rape your girlfriend or daughter? How do you know he isn't going to hold you at gunpoint if you let him move around your house without defending yourself or your family? I don't get why you people are trusting criminals so much.
I'm not saying that you need to execute the guy. You do protect you and your family until there is no longer a threat and that doesn't mean you have to kill them. I don't know about you but I'd rather live to regret using lethal force than have myself or my family harmed.[/QUOTE]
You have a gun to protect yourself against armed criminals.
Criminals have guns to protect themselves against armed homeowners.
If both have guns, the chances of someone getting shot goes up, because both parties are terrified of the other.
Simply staying out of their way, letting them take what they want (TVs etc) and then calling the police is a better approach than escalating the situation by showing yourself to be armed.
Yes, there's always the possibility that they did break in with the express intention of murdering you and your family, but there's always a worst case scenario.
why do you see it as a black and white situation? there's more than one alternative yknow. you can threaten him with a gun without shooting him (i wouldnt take my chances with this one but still. also, this is assuming you find him, and not the other way around), you can let them take what they want, or you could use all that money you wasted on guns on better locks and security systems if you're really that worried that someone might break into your house and threaten your family.
The "he just wants your tv, mayne" argument is simply dumb. Not only because you never know the intentions of someone who breaks into your house, but because your house is supposed to be the one place where you feel completely safe. To have that violated really fucks with your psychology, just ask anyone who's been through a situation where they had to cower in fear as someone messes around in their house. It's not about the fucking TV.
[QUOTE=MR2;44755463]The "he just wants your tv, mayne" argument is simply dumb. Not only because you never know the intentions of someone who breaks into your house, but because your house is supposed to be the one place where you feel completely safe. To have that violated really fucks with your psychology, just ask anyone who's been through a situation where they had to cower in fear as someone messes around in their house. It's not about the fucking TV.[/QUOTE]
so maybe you SHOULD kill the guy because THAT's totally not gonna fuck with your psychology
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44755469]so maybe you SHOULD kill the guy because THAT's totally not gonna fuck with your psychology[/QUOTE]
You don't just shoot the fucking guy on sight. You point the gun at them and tell them to back off, and if they try to attack you then you shoot them. Statistically, they back off the vast majority of the times, and in most of these encounters, no shots end up being fired. Read the thread.
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
You're a fucking psychopath if you just go and hunt for the guy in your house and shoot him without a warning or even a word. Good thing this almost never happens.
I don't know if this is somehow surprising to you but guess what: Playing dice when it comes to facing a criminal is dangerous. Simply assuming he's a nice guy is playing with your life. If he finds you and you're awake, unarmed, even if you go "p-please don't hurt me, I'll let you take what you want!" there's no guarantee that he won't kill you just to silence you, it happens. Criminals aren't as predictable as you'd like to think.
[QUOTE=MR2;44755486]You don't just shoot the fucking guy on sight. You point the gun at them and tell them to back off, and if they try to attack you then you shoot them. Statistically, they back off the vast majority of the times, and in most of these encounters, no shots end up being fired. Read the thread.[/QUOTE]
yes but what you and a lot of people on your side of the argument are missing is that that situation only works out if you're the one with the gun aimed at him. what if he breaks in, gun in hand, then finds you and your family in the living room, would you risk pulling out your gun? and what if he's a burglar that hears you coming and gets his gun out?
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;44755230]Criminals have guns to protect themselves against armed homeowners.
If both have guns, the chances of someone getting shot goes up, because both parties are terrified of the other.[/QUOTE]
Is there a single piece of literature that supports the idea that in the US burglars regularly carry guns with intent to kill armed homeowners? Any at all? Because there's [I]tons[/I] of literature supporting the idea that burglars almost always choose to burglarize empty houses, generally flee when they realize that a house is occupied, and almost never stick around if those occupants are armed.
And even then, in that minority case of burglars coming face-to-face with homeowners, I've already cited statistics published by your own government showing that a pretty significant number of these break-ins results in injury to the homeowner at the hands of the criminal. Sitting back and letting them take your stuff is no guarantee of your safety.
You can't just make up these hypothetical principles without a shred of supporting evidence and call it an argument.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44755575]yes but what you and a lot of people on your side of the argument are missing is that that situation only works out if you're the one with the gun aimed at him. what if he breaks in, gun in hand, then finds you and your family in the living room, would you risk pulling out your gun? and what if he's a burglar that hears you coming and gets his gun out?[/QUOTE]
I don't think any responsible person would attempt to pull out a gun when they already have one pointed at them themselves.
[QUOTE=MR2;44755622]I don't think any responsible person would attempt to pull out a gun when they already have one pointed at them themselves.[/QUOTE]
exactly what i'm talking about
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44755590]Stop acting like a human being is special, one guy shooting another guy for breaking in shouldn't make you argue like a twat. The fact of the matter is, the only people who care about the criminals life are the criminal, and the criminals family. Saying "oh dont shoot him he's a human", [B]implies that you should care more about some fuck you've never met vs your family and their safety and well being[/B].[/QUOTE]
Ahahahahaha holy shit what the fuck are you even doing guy? Like, for real, what is this?
Saying "yo, why the fuck you wanna shoot all the guys just because they're doing the crime on you?" isn't saying "Hey that criminal is a fine sir and you should respect his life choices, in fact he's doing better than you are clearly, as he has the time to break into your home. Also your family are fucking retards.". It's literally just saying "why do you want to escalate that shit? You're gonna have dead guy in your house for a long fucking time, blood is a persistent stain".
The mere fact that we can comprehend the (relative) importance of human life over animals, plants, single-celled organisms, etc. is more than enough reason to treat other human life with more respect than "fuck it, there's billions more of you, nobody will miss this one". Humans can be improved, taught, fixed, killing them doesn't allow for this. Attempting to solve the problems that cause the guy to break in to your house in the first place, and making them at least partially productive is more useful than killing them because you're a twitchy fuck.
If the guy stealing your TV didn't come straight up to your room to slit your throat, strangle your child and kick your dog, what makes you think they're gonna do it just because you told them to stop stealing your shit? Unless you start threatening them in a way they feel they also need to defend their lives, I don't think they're going to risk a harsher prison sentence. Basic risk assessment, anyone past puberty should have that (barring mental disorder). Most petty thieves are just going to bail the second they think the jig is up, why hang around and risk getting fucked up or arrested?
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44755642]Shh, his argument is based in a fantasy world where everyone is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
My god, why are all you hardline gun-rights nuts so fucking aggressive? Can you not actually argue? You [B]all[/B] resort to insulting the guys arguing against you, rather than their actual point. I'm not even generalising here, holy shit.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;44755630]exactly what i'm talking about[/QUOTE]
[I]I[/I] don't know what the hell you're talking about. Did you expect me to try and find a magical solution where you'd be able to one-up him, either by finding a chance to pull out your gun or by disarming them? Such a convenient situation is extremely unlikely. Or do you perhaps seriously believe that most gun owners would try and pull their gun out when they have one pointed at themselves?
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44755667]Ahahahahaha holy shit what the fuck are you even doing guy? Like, for real, what is this?[/QUOTE]
So what, are you saying that I should care more about some fuck I never met vs my family and their safety and well being?
Yeah, no.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44755613]And statistically this never happens. Not many criminals stick around after they hear the chambering of a round. To them your tv's not worth being shot, nor is it worth a murder charge.[/QUOTE]
I never said chambering of a round, I meant that they could hear you walking, for example. By the way, that was just a hypothetical situation, much like the hypothetical situation people in this thread are putting themselves in: them, with a gun aimed at the criminal, ready to shoot. I'm only pointing out that this situation is one of multiple possibilities in a break-in.
Also, what you said supports my argument. If those criminals don't want a murder charge, then does it make a difference whether or not you have a gun?
And if they're the other kind of criminal, who will "rape your girlfriend and daughter", then they're most likely armed and ready to shoot aren't they? If you're already being held at gunpoint by this kind of criminal, then I'm assuming you're responsible enough not to pull out your own gun, and then there's not really that much you can do, gun or not.
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44755642]Shh, his argument is based in a fantasy world where everyone is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
you do realize i just agreed with him, right?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44755708]I have less reapect for someone who breaks in BECAUSE THEY MADE THE CONCIOUS DECISION. In a country where shooting someone for breaking in is completely and totally legal, you breaking in screams "im too fucking stupid to continue existing , please kill me"[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure that's the right mindset. You should always give them a chance, and if you shoot them while they're unarmed and either cowering in fear, holding their hands up, or running away, you're really not much better. That's not defending anything.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44755667]Most petty thieves are just going to bail the second they think the jig is up, why hang around and risk getting fucked up or arrested?[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what we've been saying since the beginning, you dirty goblin. You don't really need to kill them (in most cases, anyway) and they're hella more likely to flee if they see an armed homeowner rather than a helpless one. Fucking hell do you even read
[editline]8th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44755667]My god, why are all you hardline gun-rights nuts so fucking aggressive? Can you not actually argue? You [B]all[/B] resort to insulting the guys arguing against you, rather than their actual point.[/QUOTE]
Because the other side is so much better than that. Riiiiiight.
[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;44755728]So what, are you saying that I should care more about some fuck I never met vs my family and their safety and well being?
Yeah, no.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Nobody has ever said that. What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Can you not go a post without strawmanning hard or what?
If push comes to shove and the guy is genuinely threatening, like, clearly not just there for your shit. Yeah go nuts, subdue them with whatever happens to be around. Owning a gun with the express purpose of "self defence" is something I don't agree with because why straight up kill the guy just for being shifty? If he makes an attempt on your life, sure go for it, but just for hovering around after being threatened with [B]fucking death[/B] whilst he works out what's going on isn't great.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.