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 |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"N329DF" wrote in message ... 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. well you are a ignorant grunt. I would rather have a armed populas vs a unarmed one, I would rather be standing over a dead criminal that broke into my house vs have cops standing over my dead body cause they could not get there in time. A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a subject I guess that's borne of the amount of firearms used in crime (from burglaries, robberies to muggings etc.) in the USA. I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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. There's protection - which I understand - and then there's taking the law into your own hands, which can only become very dangerous for all involved, burglar and homeowner alike. 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. http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/a...nd_crime.shtml http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3112818.stm Which is the safer society? We both live in different situations - given the amount of gun crime in America I understand your point of view, I just think it sad that people are so ready to use deadly force. I see no defence for that. Jim Doyle Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. 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. Jim Doyle -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Doyle wrote:
I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...] Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?) Just wondering... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Jim Doyle wrote: I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...] Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?) Just wondering... Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area, doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in place. People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached. 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself. Jim Doyle |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
ure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area,
doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in place. would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed ? Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal. The numbers are not always correct, if you look at the number of youths that were killed, a large number were gang/drug related, and to keep the numbers high, 20+ year olds were listed as being youths. There is no record for the number of crimes that were stopped by the mere presence of a firearm. I know for myself, that was 3 times, with shots being fired once in the protection of my nieghbor and his son from a pair of attacking Pitt Bulls. Armed men are citizens, unarmed men are subjects Matt Gunsch, A&P,IA,Private Pilot Riding member of the 2003 world champion drill team Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team GWRRA,NRA,GOA |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"N329DF" wrote in message ... ure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area, doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in place. would you want to break into a house not knowing if the homeowner is armed ? Kind of make breaking and entering a iffy proprosal. Well maybe but according to FBI statistics, a house, apartment or condominium is burglarized once every 15 seconds so its not exactly foolproof. A good home alarm system is generally considered to be a more effective deterrent. Indeed the insurance companies will give hefty discount if an approved system is fitted. Most burglars arent exactly the brightest fish in the gene pool and a majority are opportunists who look for an easy route in and out of a property. I rather doubt many are aware of the guns owned by the home owner. Keith |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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.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. Jim Doyle -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Doyle" wrote in
news "Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message ... Jim Doyle wrote: I am not on the troll here, I'm genuinely interested. 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 [...] Did it ever occur to you that one possible reason there had been no burglaries there in the preceeding twelve years is because many of his neighbors were similarly armed? (And the burglars would naturally seek less-dangerous territory?) Just wondering... Sure, that's probably exactly why there were no burglaries in the area, doesn't solve the problem though does it? He didn't have a sign in the window advertising this vast arsenal and the desire to kill any sod who breaks into his house - deterrents only work if they are known to be in place. Not true.If a significant number of homes are suspected of being armed,the odds of being shot while making a burglary attempt are much greater.And even the unarmed homes are safer,as the criminals have no way of knowing WHOSE homes are armed. It's like those businesses that post "NO guns allowed" signs are prime targets for crime,because the crims can count on no one inside being armed,thus vulnerable,AND safer for the criminal. People will still burgle, if they're expecting armed resistance then it'll just make them more desperate and quick to fire upon being approached. 10,000+ firearm deaths kinda speaks for itself. Jim Doyle But you wrongly assume that the crims will *know* that armed resistance is possible.Also,criminals do not want to risk any shootouts,as the chances of THEM getting shot is high,and the noise draws attention. They prefer unarmed victims,and surveys of incarcerated felons have shown this to be true. And much of those firaearm deaths are criminal-criminal shootings,like druggies fighting it out. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
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 |