If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Jim Doyle" wrote in : Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? It's hardly as if he's fending away Indians from the homestead. Yeah,like there aren't any criminals running loose preying on ordinary decent citizens. (ODC's) A person was shot twice with a small caliber gun in the building next to mine,in my apartment complex. I heard the gunshots,saw the crooks driving off,gave a report to the police about it.There's a lot of people who successfully defend themselves with firearms every year(in the US). Even in the UK,Jill Dando,BBC commentator,was shot and killed on the London street,in front of her home.George Harrsion was nearly knifed to death in his home,even with high security.His wife was also wounded by the burglar. Do you expect a elderly lady to defend herself against larger,stronger young thugs unarmed? Do you believe that police can be everywhere,to protect everyone,24/7/365? It's not so. I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a pistol with him. If he believed that she owned a gun,perhaps he would.However,I have read of many such attempts where the lady or old guy was still able to get to their gun and either run off the crook,hold them for police,wound them (and they get caught seeking medical treatment),or kill the crook,even after being shot themselves.Allowing citizens firearms to defend themselves increases the risks for the criminals,often to the point they pick some other crime to commit.And it's far better than just hoping the criminal has good intentions towards you. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former. Replying to Matt Gunsch, I looked into the details: In the UK for the year 2001 - 2002, there were 23 firearm deaths. In 2000 (not the same year, but close enough) 66% of the 15,517 murders in America were caused by firearms - that's about 10,000. Even accounting for the relative population sizes of the two countries, you're still several orders of magnitude out - and that does not include the number of accidental deaths caused by firearms in the same time period. Yes,but you still ignore the other *non-gun* crime that people in the UK must endure.For instance,your at-home burglaries are much higher than in the US.Also,your gun-crime IS increasing. Firstly, I'd rather be punched than shot, so I'll happily endure the other non gun crimes in the UK. I have not, in my posts, stated that the UK is some crime free haven, nor that the US is some 'Escape from New York' style war-zone. Really, bad people exist in all societies, just in some quite a few of them have guns. You are incorrect to state that at-home burglaries are much higher in the UK. 1,309 domestic burglaries occur per 100,000 population in the US equating to a 1.3% chance of your VCR ending up in someone's swag bag each year. Where as in England there is an average of 14.5 domestic burglaries per 1,000 households - being conservative and assuming just two persons per household (the average is actually a little over three) - that's 14.5 incidents per 2,000 population, i.e. a 0.73% chance of being burgled. Simply put, you are at least twice as likely to be burgled in the US than UK, (although obviously it depends greatly upon the area in which you live, since these burglaries will not be spread evenly throughout either country's populace). http://www.cobras.org/usastats.htm http://society.guardian.co.uk/social...761948,00.html I see the reasoning behind a free choice to carry a gun in America, and being a realist I would most likely keep a gun were I to live there. I just think it a shame that so many are empowered with deadly force that are so willing to use it. Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal. Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when they purchase their pistol, nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff . As the judge, jury and literally the executioner, you're doing as much a disservice to the public as the chap you've just shot. The most basic appreciation of rudimentary criminal justice yields at least that. They either get caught on the spot,or while seeking medical care for their wounds,or get killed.And thus they commit no further crimes.A service to the public. But in a free society,it should be the individuals choice to use firearms to defend themselves. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? Even if that guy is caught red handed rifling through your smalls, it's indefensible. Jim Doyle |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the two
alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a pistol with him. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former. Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a young male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of the intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed. I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your own wife or mother? And since I'm in a state of high dudgeon at the moment, here's a link on violent crime for the year in question from -- no, not some NRA think tank, but The Economist: http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=513031 Britain doesn't come off too well. Here's another link from the Bureau of Justice. More Americans kill themselves with firearms than use them to commit any sort of crime. (Nothing to be proud of, for Christ's sake, but revealing). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm And at any rate, this is all so much ****ing in the wind. The primary causes of crime are demographic and economic: The more jobless young men you have running around, the bigger the spike in crime. Demographers have been pointing this out for a long time, but they don't seem to make much of a dent in the whole crime/punishment/gun debate. I'm convinced culture also plays a part, as fuzzy and un-quantifiable as that may sound. I live in rural northern California, where we have no shortage of mean/stupid druggies/alcoholics/just plain crazies, and where the percentage of people on some kind of state support is in the double digits, and where pot and meth are to be easily manufactured and purchased, and where absolutely every house has *several* longarms in it... .....and yet out of 150,000-odd people, we had something like 380 violent crimes in 2001, including two murders (neither of which were gun-related). Which was damned alarming, because most years it's zero. I know that doesn't fit your prejudices -- about firearms in general, or about my people, or about the society we live in -- but there it is. Make of it what you like, city boy. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Doyle" wrote:
Not too long ago I visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was carrying a gun or not. Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you? -- -Gord. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking as an ignorant grunt, does it not scare you ****less that a 'citizen' is armed in the first place? Hardly...but then, I'm not a burglar... -- -Gord. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote:
Might you be thinking of the old prohibition of ejection seats in private aircraft? That was about the pyros, I believe. However, it's long gone and ejections seats are legal if maintained properly. Mary .....aaaand if you can afford to, I understand that the certification process is sinful expensive... -- -Gord. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
From: "Gord Beaman"
"Jim Doyle" wrote: Not too long ago I visited the US and for a couple of nights stayed with a family - the father kept a loaded AR15 (I think that was the designation, it was a semi automatic version of the M16) and Browning 9mm for home protection. I saw no need in that, apparently there'd not been a burglary in the neighbourhood for over ten years - yet he slept beside these guns and freely admitted that he'd shoot any burglar he found in his house, regardless of whether he was carrying a gun or not. Wow! ten years you say?...sure can't argue with success can you? -- -Gord. Gord, you missed the point. It seems he was saying you should only arm yourself AFTER a crime has been committed. Tsk Tsk. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired and life member of NRA |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Shafer wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:09 -0700, (Marc Reeve) wrote: Cartoon of a stretch of desert highway with the standard "Speed checked by aircraft" sign, with an F-4 with CHP markings and a full bomb load flying above. I had that on a placard over my desk for years, except that the road sign had an F-4 silhouette on it as well. I found this one on the web a while back http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/speedenforcementbyair.jpg -- James... www.jameshart.co.uk |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Stranahan" wrote in message ... I see your point, and sincerely, it is convincing. I just think of the two alternatives - granted a defenceless lady has no capacity to fend off a burglar and there is no way the police can prevent him from breaking and entering - which is a sorry state of affairs. However, were that lady armed with a 9mm, any sensible burglar would still go to her home taking a pistol with him. Which is the safer situation for the lady, neither are pleasant, but I would argue the former. Okay, look.. I don't want to come off sounding like some chest-beating right-wing arsehole, but.... look at what you just wrote. Given the choice between self defense in her own home and placing herself at the mercy of a young male intruder, the woman in question should throw herself on the mercy of the intruder for *fear* that *he* might be armed. I'm sorry, but that's loathesome. Is this what you would choose for your own wife or mother? Look, here's the deal - I would rather the lady not be burgled in the first place - as anyone would. However that's trivial. Consider two options, either neither the lady nor the burglars has a weapon or on the flip side, they both do. Who is going to come out the better in a shoot out? The granny? Certainly not, which is why it would be better that there were no guns involved. Of course this is purely academic since America has a firmly established gun culture - don't forget you're talking to a Brit where the prospect of a some opportunist burglar entering my house with a handgun is frankly zero. In America, this is not the case, so give the poor granny an uzi and I wish her every success. Gun related deaths in the UK weighed in at 23 compared to over 10,000 in the US for a similar time period. Granted, a large proportion of that 10,000 may be gang related, or there may be other driving factors which are not so much of an issue in the UK. I'm just speculating. However you look at it, 10,000's just staggering - that's Vietnam in five years. This ethos of gun totting scares me rigid, how on earth can it be defended? In the US the number of states permitting the concealed carriage of weapons has risen from nine to 31 since 1986. That's just a step in the wrong direction. Would you kill a man if he tried to steal your car? Do you value your pick-up over a man's life? Even if he is a ****? And since I'm in a state of high dudgeon at the moment, here's a link on violent crime for the year in question from -- no, not some NRA think tank, but The Economist: http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=513031 Britain doesn't come off too well. Certainly doesn't, and that's a shame. Here's another link from the Bureau of Justice. More Americans kill themselves with firearms than use them to commit any sort of crime. (Nothing to be proud of, for Christ's sake, but revealing). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm And at any rate, this is all so much ****ing in the wind. The primary causes of crime are demographic and economic: The more jobless young men you have running around, the bigger the spike in crime. Demographers have been pointing this out for a long time, but they don't seem to make much of a dent in the whole crime/punishment/gun debate. I wholeheartedly agree, but wouldn't you prefer those guys to not have ready access to guns to facilitate those violent crimes? Or is it their right to go about their criminal activities safe in the knowledge that they've a weapon for self protection? Lunacy! I'm convinced culture also plays a part, as fuzzy and un-quantifiable as that may sound. I live in rural northern California, where we have no shortage of mean/stupid druggies/alcoholics/just plain crazies, and where the percentage of people on some kind of state support is in the double digits, and where pot and meth are to be easily manufactured and purchased, and where absolutely every house has *several* longarms in it... ....and yet out of 150,000-odd people, we had something like 380 violent crimes in 2001, including two murders (neither of which were gun-related). Which was damned alarming, because most years it's zero. I know that doesn't fit your prejudices -- about firearms in general, or about my people, or about the society we live in -- but there it is. I'm not desperately urging you guys to throw down your guns, shout hallelujahs and join the British way of life. I'm just fascinated as to why you so readily defend your right to shoot someone where really no right should exist. Make of it what you like, city boy. Call me what you like. Jim Doyle |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Doyle wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote: Hey,sometimes it's a good thing to shoot a criminal. Now tell me you're joking; that's just a ridiculous statement. It's never a good thing to shoot anyone. Well, there is a definite historical culture clash between Brits and Americans concerning personal ownership of firearms (and that alone is hard to overcome) - but it actually goes much deeper than the legal mechanics of private gun ownership. I assure you he is not joking, nor is firearm defense an innappropriate response to a home invasion. The only one of your points upon which there will be wide agreement is that it is never (or rather, rarely) a good thing to shoot someone - just as it is rarely a good idea to bash in a person's skull with a bat, or to carve their heart in half with a kitchen knife. However, when that person invades your home, clearly with the intent to do you harm (as in a burglary; murderous intent need not be present) - the only safe way to ensure he does not do you physical harm, is with overwhelming force... and the more efficient/effective your choice of tools, the better. It's not as if each citizen receives a thorough briefing on the law when they purchase their pistol, You'd be surprised; many states do. (Particularly where "concealed carry" is available to non-convict and sane citizens.) nor have they been deputised to shoot perps by the local sheriff. No one - including those living where effective means of self- defense are denied to them - requires deputization in order to defend themselves from harm. Is it correct then that in a free society one person has the right to take the life of another? If that killing is the only way to defend yourself from harm, yes - and the tool used to do the deed isn't germane to the question: a brick can kill you just as dead as a bullet. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |