Tachion

Ditto for me!
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to discuss the topic so openly.

I feel at the very least we are all trying to find a solution to make life safer and better for others and that is a great ideal to share.

Willravel

Hopolophobe is not a word in the english language (according to Webster College Edition 2005 and several other dictionaries I've checked). Would you care to explain it's meaning? If you mean people who are afraid of people who have guns, then you call into that group along with everyone else in the world.
What a great argument Spoiler: if your intent was to alienate yourself from people on both sides of this argument, including pro-gun people. You're really making me think Spoiler: that you misrepresent a majority of gun owners, who ar NOT gun nuts, but simply people who belive that their safety and the safety of their family depends on protection provided by owning a gun.
Prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. As you can see from my really long posts, I have studied this and I have made my decision based on both philosophy and reason. I'm not prejudiced against gun owners.

What lengths am I willing to take this? I am willing to take this as far as educating people that having a gun does not make you a better person for any reason. I'm willing to go as far as teaching children how to protect themselves by becoming upstanding members of society. I'm willing to prevent crime by preventing poverty. I'm willing to look gun nuts straight in the eye and shoot them with my reason, not a bullit. I'm willing to listen, but you'd better be ready for me to respond. I'm willing to tell people that guns HURT AND KILL, even in the hands of well trained people who love their country, etc. etc. I'm willing to walk up to the edge of your property and play sappy 60s and 70s anti-war songs over loudspeakers until you understand that you're not at war with anyone.

I'm also willing to listen and learn.

The_Dunedan

Hoplophobe = Person with an irrational fear of weapons or the gear of war. From the Greek "Hoplon" ( secondarily "Panoply" ) meaning "shield" and "Phobia" meaning irrational fear.

Maybe I don't represent a majority of gunowners; I truly wish that I did, because it would prevent a lot of the problems we see today. Things like the USA PATRIOT Act don't tend to survive very well when their authors are being tarred and feathered.

No, having a weapon does not make you a better or more moral person. It does, however, vastly improve your ability to defend yourself should the need arise. I don't forsee my car catching fire, but I carry an extinguisher just in case.

Teaching kids to be upstanding members of society is cool too...but only "upstanding" as it relates to not actually harming others. My kids will be raised never to initiate Force or Fraud; they will be harmless to peaceable people. They will also be raised, however, to be implacable foes of tyrants both petty and grand.

Preventing crime by preventing poverty is AWESOME. Let's start by ditching highway-robbery schema like Income Taxes and debt-based currency. Getting to keep 100% of a stable-value currency would go a LONG way towards improving our situation in this country...and would also keep our Government from invading other countries or paying for bridges to nowhere.

I am aware that guns hurt and kill; this is why I am NRA rated to instruct in firearms safety. The more people know how to use weapons safely, the fewer people will be accidentally shot.

I understand that I am not at war with Muslims, women, Jews, Iraq, Somalia, or the guy down the block. I am, however, a relentless opponent of Government tyrants and their Corporate partners-in-crime. With THEM I am at war; it simply happens to be a "cold" war of propaganda and words as the moment, as opposed to a "hot" war of bullets and IEDs.

If you are truly willing to listen and learn, you rock on about 6 different levels. Most people, on -both- sides of the debate, are not ( evidenced by the fact that many gunowners continue to vote Republicrat, despite their continual screw-job on the gunowning community. )

I apologize if my response seemed a bit over-the-top; I have simply had far, far, far too many encounters with hoplophobic gun-grabbers who expect me, my entire family, and all of my friends to simply "lie back and enjoy it" while they pump away at our rights. Mea Culpa.

Willravel

I figured as much. Wouldn't that make pretty much anyone a hoplophobe? I mean most gun owners, such as dksuddeth, own guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. Most people who don't have guns do not have one beacuse they don't want a gun in the house. That covers a very broad spectrum of society in general.
I understand your point of course. I'm sure we'll agree on 99% of what we think the government is doing wrong. Still, I doubt that I could stop the government with a gun. Even if all the gun owners in the US banded together and were somehow able to become organized against the government, there is no way we can compete with the weapons they have. Our best defence against the government is the appeal to the soldiers. If we have the soldiers, and thus the military, on our side, then we have nothing to fear from Bush or any other tyrant. BTW, I think Bush'd look good in feathers.
I have to echo my argument with dksuddeth then. Isn't the function of a fire extinguisher to put out a fire? Isn't having a gun fighting fire with fire?
Always teach that freedom is not free, of course. Always teach, within the realms of reality, that you might one day have to defend your freedom, and that is a worthy cause. I'd give my life for my freedom. I, personally wouldn't kill for my freedom, but I understand why you would and I support that.
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
That is also 100% true.
Then we're always at war. America has used propoganda since it's conception, and it will always use propoganda to some extent. That's in the nature of a government controled by people who want power. Corporations have much different weaknesses than government. Corporations are actually very fragile, and if you really wanted to topple one, it wouldn't be that hard. I've considered this several times. The irony is that the current tool of the corporations, the media, is actually the greatest weapon against them.
Well, I am lucky to be addicted to studying. Part of that, to me,is to completly explore all sides of an argument and their various lines of logic and proof. Then and only then can you make an informed decision about anything.
Please understand that I almost deleted my post because I thought it was too harsh. I even contacted a mod about it.And the Mod sees no reason to delete....nor edit this post, excellent debate guys....keep it up. I want to make sure that you know that you have allies against those who would steal our liberty, but not all of us are armed with guns. I try to arm myself with knowledge. How successful I am in that is arguable, surely, but I doubt anyone can argue that I have an ineffective weapon.

When you say "Mea Culpa", do you mean taht you take responsibility for your actions? Or is it religious? Or both? Just curious.

The_Dunedan

Will,
"Mea Culpa" is a fancy way of apologizing. I'm Catholic, so fancy Latin phrases kinda come with the territory.

kinsaj

Dunedan, let me just say that you are not alone... in most aspects at least. I would fight, but I would value my life above my guns. I can always build more. I like to compare risk versus gain., and in death, I see no gain.

And, I will not get dragged into this argument, so don't bother responding to me directly if you will be responding at all.

__________________
boom

dksuddeth

I do not own a gun to protect myself from other people with guns. I own a gun to protect my family, period. It wouldn't matter whether the aggressor was carrying a gun or a pocketknife. If he comes at me or my family, I will defend myself and stop the threat.

All too often there are people out there who don't understand why I, or anyone for that matter, choose to use a gun instead of defending with my fists/foot, or something less lethal. My answer is pretty simple, why should I fight to defend myself or my family? I'm not out to prove i'm a badass by kicking the shit out of someone, or a group of people. I actually abhor violence, but i'm willing to employ the most lethal kind I can when it comes to the defense and protection of my loved ones. It has nothing to do with being a gun nut. A gun is the most effective weapon to provide protection for my family. I will not just let that be taken away without a very nasty opposition.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

Alot of people get disheartened at the thought of 'what could we do against the government'. I tell you now, it would be easier than you think. there are how many military members? 2 million, give or take. Put that against 40 million armed americans, we win hands down. It doesn't matter what weapons they have. Theres no way that a 2 million person military could handle 40 million.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Brilliant Idiot

Especially to dksuddeth,

OK - let's extend Tachion's examples...

There are obviously places where even you, dksuddeth, do not carry a gun. Not in the shower. Perhaps not at the dinner table. I'm assuming it's not the first thing on your mind when you're making love. Are there times or places where you don't carry a gun because you feel comfortable and safe. Like when you're having tea in your living room with your mother. Or maybe, as a child you felt safe snuggled into bed.

But the fact is, even during these occasions, you are as safe or as much at risk as you are when you're carrying the gun. The safety factor hasn't changed. Just your feeling of being safe.

The fact is, the feeling of being safe is inside you. You can control and cultivate that sense of security. The key is to notice what you think about and change that. Notice what you do that heightens your feeling of being unsafe, and change those actions. You're carrying a gun because you feel unsafe and when you carry the gun, you are thinking about how unsafe you are. Change that. Change any habits that contribute to your mental chatter about how unsafe you are.

It's not about changing how safe you actually are. That never changes. And I'll go so far as to say you don't know how safe you really are or how safe you really aren't. That's a big picture you will never see.

What you can do is change your view of your world. That's all you ever have. And, the dinner table analogy I gave above, shows that if you change your view, you change your world.

So work on how you feel about you life. Work on what you focus on. Work on what is going on in your head.

Americans live in the most armed country on the planet. They are well policed with a highly organized force that is among the least corrupt in the world, even though, yes, sometimes things get past even the American police system. If you still feel unsafe under those circumstances, you need to work on your feelings of safety.

Increasing your feeling of safety is not going to be accomplished by adding more arms. You can't possible arm yourself enough. You will always be able to imagine arming yourself more. You can't win that internal arms race.

So call a truce and start thinking about something that will make your life matter.

dksuddeth

With the rising crime rate, I would rather have the gun and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Boy scout motto, right?

http://rdu.news14.com/content/top_st...asp?ArID=79317

A Raleigh man shot during a Hillsborough home invasion is now behind bars.

Orange County deputies arrested Franklin Wade Davis and took him from the hospital to jail on Tuesday. He is being held on a $1 million bond.

They say 62-year-old homeowner Carlton Whitted, Sr. shot Davis and another man with his 22-caliber rifle.

Deputies say Davis shot Whitted's wife and daughter in the legs and that's when Whitted opened fire.

Davis is being held on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury.

Davis's alleged partner in the crime remains hospitalized at Duke University Hospital. He faces the same charges once he is released.

Police also took out warrants against a third man, who they said was at the home and took the two wounded men to the hospital. Investigators identified that man as Delmar Delonte Mitchell, 19, of Hillsborough.

Orange County Sheriff Lindy Pendergrass says no charges will be filed against Whitted.

With the speed that your safe after dinner family movie can turn from uneventful to nitemarish, even though the odds dictate you might never experience it, it's better to have it and not need it, that to need it and not have it. With the increase in public shootings at areas like malls and shopping centers, I'm not willing to risk the lives of my family when I can increase the chances of surviving a violent encounter SHOULD it occur.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori...g.6cdec88.html

Houston police are investigating the fatal shooting of a man in the 8400 block of Broadway Boulevard on January 14, 2006 at about 10:45 p.m.

The victim is identified as Jimmy Torres, 28, of 3101 Spencer Highway.
Police said a man was leaving the apartment complex and saw Torres standing in the parking lot and noticed that he was holding a pistol. They said Torres raised the pistol and fired at the man, striking his vehicle.

The man returned fire and Torres suffered gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to HPD.

The man left the apartment complex and drove to a nearby location to call the police. He returned to the scene with police. Charges will be referred to the Harris County District Attorney.

Had this potential victim NOT been armed, we might be reading a different outcome with the guy just going to his car ending up dead.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13121933.htm
A 66-year-old grandmother shot an intruder in her north Arlington home early Wednesday as he grabbed for her gun, she told police. Susan Gaylord Buxton said the training she received to earn her concealed-handgun permit saved her life.
"If I didn't have a gun to protect myself, I probably wouldn't be here," she said.

Handguns ARE defensive weapons, it can be the difference between life and death for anyone who is just minding their own business if someone decides to try to victimize them.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=3656088
A homeowner shot and killed an intruder who broke into a home near Memorial Park.
The suspect jumped a fence and broke through the side door of a town home on Lacy at Dettering just north of Memorial Drive. He had a baseball bat.
A man was home with his wife and child. He warned the intruder that he had a gun. That didn't stop him.
HPD's Mike Walker said, "(As he) began to make his way through the residence the homeowner secured his wife and child. As he tried to go upstairs he shot him."

The intruder died at the scene. Police say classify the case as a justifiable homicide.
Police are also checking out reports that the suspect may have had an accomplice. Witnesses heard a car speed off after the homeowner fired shots.

Had the homeowner NOT had a gun, this could have resulted in 3 deaths. As it is, his family was not injured because he had a gun.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

longbough

willravel, the sad part is that many of your points have been addressed before. The fact that you don't aknowledge this just says you're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what anyone says. Most of your points are made as unsubstantiated personal impressions. I think you ought to seriously consider the opinion of people who work with law enforcement, the legal system and epidemiologists ... and polititians are a poor substitute.
I can't believe you're saying this.
I wonder if someone used that argument before the war on drugs?

The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description.

You should know better than to ask me that. You have no idea how offensive that request is. I'm still working ... get it?

It plays essentially NO role. I drove from coast to coast 3 times in my SUV and didn't get stopped even once for a moving violation - most of the time I was over the speed limit. The last time my registration was expired (I forgot to renew it until the day I had to leave).

Criminals don't fear police shootouts because the police are never there at the moment of a crime - (most criminals don't attempt daylight bank robberies in Hollywood). Home invaders don't confront the police - the police aren't expected to stop crime - it's not their job. Muggers don't confront the police. Carjackers don't confront the police. The police will attempt to get the criminal AFTER the crime is committed (whether that crime is rape or bludgeoning someone with a hammer in a home invasion which just happened in Plesanton) ... it's not their responsibility (or in their ability to STOP crime). Ask any cop ... the expectation people have that "cops stop crime" is unrealistic. Have you ever heard of a rape stopped by the police?

Let's take a home invader ... any one of them will be honest that they don't worry about the police ... it's not an issue for them at all (otherwise they wouldn't be doing it in the first place). I don't know of ONE single career home invader (yes I know more than one) who was ever confronted even once by a cop during a home invasion. That includes homes with alarms. THE ONLY THING HE FEARS IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE RESIDENT HAS A GUN OR A PITBULL - PERIOD.

I have both guns and a big dog - but my dog isn't with me 24/7.

Not all home invaders, carjackers, muggers, rapists etc. even use a gun. In fact, with some of crimes (e.g. rape) MOST of them don't. I'll have to look into the statistics ... but that's just my impression. If I'm wrong I'll post.
wow. this tells me all I need to know about where you're coming from. Obviously you wish to ignore everything I said.

Don't insult both our intelligences by saying that ... I explained the term "defensive weapon." The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.

can a gun be used offensively?
absolutely! But the term "defensive" weapon refers to it's intended purpose by the user. If I drive a porsche I can call it a commuter vehicle because I drive it back and forth from work. It's not a euphemism. I shouldn't have to call it a "racer" because I don't race it. My guns are "defensive tools" because I choose to use them for defense - that's all.

In other words, "defensive gun" isn't used as a euphemism. A gun is not without lethal potential and can be used offensively as well. The police will apply the term "offensive weapon" to a car if it is used in a deliberate attempt to inflict harm on a helpless victim. Similarly the car can be used in "defense" if that same car were used to hit someone pounding on your windshield with a crowbar in an attempt to kill you.

You're smart enough to understand the analogy. The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. They're two different issues. I agree that one should secure the house in every way possible. But a defensive tool is a different measure - in fact, more useful than a gun is having a big dog. I have both because my dog isn't with me 24/7.

does that make it right?
There is a reason why we don't live in a pure democracy - that's because pure democracies aren't ideal and only serve to oppress a minority.

Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.

Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make it right. In this case it is a law that disproportionately affects a minority (gun owners). Yes. it also affects criminals but affects law-abiding citizens to a greater degree (that's because a ban means no la-abiding citizen, by definition, would have a gun).

why do you keep going over issues that have been addressed before unless you're more interested in winning an argument than uncovering the truth.

To quote, "He uses logic as a drunken man uses a lightpost ... for support rather than enlightenment." Don't be like that - I still respect you, willravel, but you're not making it easy.

dksuddeth

Here is a taste of what SanFranciscans can expect after their little ban is put in to effect.

NY home invaders sought
Cops hunt for 3 in home invasion shooting35-year-old shot in the head; three suspects on the loose
(New York -WABC, January 19, 2006) - Police on Staten Island are searching for three armed robbers who forced their way into a home and shot the owner.
It happened about 2:30 Thursday afternoon at a home on Lake Avenue in Mariners Harbor.
Police say a 16-year-old girl was home when the robbers forced their way inside.
While they were ransacking the place, the owner came home and was shot in the head.
As the suspects were running away, they dropped a safe they had stolen.
The victim is in critical but stable condition.
The teenager was not injured.

FYI, NY is in the top 5 states when it comes to the restriction on guns. They had ONLY 540 murders in NYC for 2005. Thats 1.5 a day approximately. How many of these could have been prevented had the victim been armed?

Here is another story that shows criminals are afraid of people that carry.
Homeowner shoots one, the rest scattered
Police in Collierville say a homeowner shot and killed one of several people who broke into his house over the weekend.

Police Lieutenant Greg Flint says homeowner Brian Harper was awakened by his burglar alarm early Saturday and fired at the intruders with a .45-caliber handgun, striking one of them. Flint says the others scattered and Harper doesn't know if the several other shots he fired hit anyone else.

Police say none of the home invaders fired a weapon, but investigators don't know if any of them had one.

The dead invaders police record shows arrests since 1998 for violations including criminal trespass, especially aggravated robbery and cocaine possession.

And yet another story of using a gun for defense.
I have a gun, if you come in, I will shoot you
In class, New lectured that you have no control of the time or place when you might face a surprise showdown. In Needham's case, it came on a business trip to Florida, where she had checked into a hotel room, chained the door and set her pistol on the bedside.
"I was relaxing for a moment when somebody suddenly opened the door," Needham said. "They were coming into the room. The chain stopped them. I grabbed my pistol and racked a round so they could hear the action and know I had a gun."
Needham remembers shouting: "Stop! Do not come in! Who are you?"
The guy yelled back, deep and menacing, 'I'm coming in,' Needham recalled.
"Do not come in!" she shouted back. "I have a gun! Leave!"
The intruder wedged his arm past the door and wrestled to try to unhook the safety chain. The arm was "huge and hairy and it scared me," Needham said.
Her training kicked in. She positioned herself around a corner, pointing her .45 Colt semi-automatic pistol at point-blank range and again shouted a warning: "Do not come in. I have a gun. If you come in, I will shoot you."
For the intruder, logic apparently set in -- and the man ran off down the hall. Needham said hotel security did not find him. "Nobody knew anything."

Idiots in this next story confirm, we NEED to arm ourselves for defense.
One dead, one charged in shooting.
The Jackson County Sheriff's Department is investigating a shooting Sunday that left Brian Howell dead and his friend, Richard Hinton, in jail.
Sheriff Mike Byrd said Howell and Hinton went to get Hinton's ex-wife, who was with her boyfriend, Donald Sexton Sr., at Sexton's house on Yellow Bluff Road. Howell and Hinton, the sheriff said, had baseball bats and guns with them.
Hinton allegedly fired into the trailer, but did not hit anyone. Byrd said it appears Sexton returned fire in self-defense and struck Howell in the head. Howell was taken to a hospital in Alabama, where he later died.
Hinton was charged with shooting into an occupied dwelling. Byrd said the case against Sexton will be presented to a grand jury, which will decide whether charges against him will be filed.

This story shows how guns COULD save lives.
Woman mauled to death by dogs.
A 76-year-old woman died after Pit Bull Rottweilers attacked her this weekend. She was mauled to death while riding a lawnmower in her front yard in Thorndale, east of Round Rock.
Lillian Stiles died a horrific death, attacked by six Pit Bull Rottweilers. Lillian had been riding the lawnmower in her front yard when she was attacked. A passer-by saw it, tried to help, but was bitten instead, so he ran into the house looking for Stiles' husband, Jack.
"He asked me, he said, 'Do you have a gun?' And I said, 'Yes.' I came in the house and got my 22 rifle, and as I went outside, one of the dogs was charging toward me, face-to-face, and that's when I shot that dog," Jack said.
Jack scared off the other five dogs, but it was too late. The dogs had already killed his wife of 55 years.


Because people see alot of stories about the unlawful uses of guns doesn't mean that there aren't good and lawful uses for them. Stopping law abiding people from having guns is not going to save lives.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

willravel, CA is where home invasions became quite common place in the late 80's and early 90's within the Asian communities. I specifically recall hearing about them starting in the SF area before I heard anything about them in LA when I was growing up there.

All the safety glass, bars, etc won't save you the moment you open the door and someone pushes it and you in. Hence home invasions have been on the rise.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dksuddeth

I'll just go ahead and debunk the taser as a defensive weapon only issue right here.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...16robbery.html

December 16, 2005

A clerk in a Mission Hills liquor store grabbed a pistol and chased two masked men out of his store last night after they shot another clerk with a Taser, San Diego police said.

The masked men walked into Mission Hills Liquor on West Lewis Street about 8:50 p.m. and confronted one clerk, police said.

The pair demanded money, and when the clerk refused, he was shot with the Taser, a stun gun. His co-worker pulled out a handgun and chased away the would-be robbers.

And my guess is that these two that fled the scene in this next story will seriously reconsider an up close and personal robbery again.
Stafford Texas
A confrontation between a Stafford homeowner and a suspected armed robber turned deadly Friday night.
Stafford police say the resident had just pulled into his driveway on Maple Leaf near Emerald Leaf Friday evening when an armed suspect tried to rob him. The homeowner had his own gun. Investigators say he shot and killed the suspect.
Two other suspects sped away from the scene in a small red car. They are still on the run.
Stafford police officers say the homeowner will not be charged because he acted in self-defense.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

And home invasions are not just about a group of people breaking down the door like a swat team. You end up with all sorts of deceitful methods like this one....

Woman foils home invasion, repels intruder
PARK RIDGE - A woman thwarted a home invasion Tuesday afternoon when she pushed a would-be robber off her porch, police said.
Holding a package and a clipboard, the man knocked at the woman's door on Kevin Court about 2 p.m. Tuesday, said Capt. Joseph Madden.
Assuming he was a deliveryman, she opened the door to let him in. But he pulled out a handgun, Madden said.
The woman immediately "jumped" him, pushing him down three or four porch steps, and both of them fell outside, Madden said.
Dropping his gun on the lawn, the assailant ran off and got into a red van driven by an accomplice. The vehicle was last seen headed west on Rock Avenue.
"She was very shaken up," Madden said. "I guess she must have been in good shape if she overpowered him and threw him down the stairs.
"It's definitely something we were very impressed with."

This part makes me sick though

At the same time, Madden cautioned against people trying to take such matters into their own hands.
"At this point I think she reacted and it worked out well for her," he said. "In the future, we never recommend for people to fight their assailant."

In other words, just lay down and submit to whatever atrocities and brutalities the criminal has in mind for you. don't fight back. I hate idiot law enforcement.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I'm not a politician yet, and my training is in psychology, which does give me some insight into criminality.
What I am saying is look at gun crime rates in D.C. before the gun ban and compare that to gun crime rates in SF right now. These rates are not the same.
Call it a defensive scenereo then, not a defensive weapon.
I'm sorry, but I was suprised you even posted what you did. I thought, "Well, if he's willing to spill the beans...". I didn't expect a respons, of course. I'm sorry you were offended, but what did you expect? You brought up obviously ongoing investigations, not me.
Okay, so it plays NO role. I concede on this.
It's not about police, it's about the ability to sucede, and what tools are necessary to aid in the success rate. A man with a spear is less likely to be able to break into a home (home invasions have seemed to take a center stage in this discussion, so I use that as my hypothetical scenereo) than a man with a gun. My triple pain glass windows will not stop a bullit, but they would make it much more difficult, and time consuming, to get inside without the aid of a gun.
I don't have a gun, or a big dog (my dog is a beagle puppy), but I think that even my presence (a man above 6' tall with big arms and a mean look on my face) would be enought to ward off many home invaders, ESPICICALLY if they didn't have a gun. Of course, not all people are big and menacing (I suppose it's arguable whether I'm menacing or not, but anyway...), so they should take adaquate security measures. Get the security doors, get the security windows. I know that it's impossible to prevent them from coming in 100% of the time, but most would give up after a while.
You mean like mase and a taser, both of which have bene proven weapons against rape, neither of which are a gun? What about those two weapons?
When you say 'defensive weapon'...where is the word scenereo in there? Defensive is an adjective for the gun, which is the mechanism. If you want to argue semantics, then argue them.
No, they are offensive weapons that can be used in a situation where you have to defend yourself by going on the offensive.
I think that most people should have dogs, both for their companionship, and for their loyalty when you are in danger. I am smart enought to see when one is trying to equate thing sthat, for the purpous of this argument, are not equatable.
Right and wrong are matters of p[hilosophy in this matter. I bel;ieve that they have the right to choose, and they did, legally. If you don't think they have the right to choose, that's fine, but you must admit that it was a legal vote.
Some cases shouldn't be put before a vote, of course. But many (I don't know how many, but certianally some) pro-gun people think that they should have the right to (for example have the right to vote on whether homosexuals can get married. This is only equatable to the gun ban because they both fit neatly into "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness".
Like I've siad, I dohn't know if this is goig to work. If I were a betting man, I'd bet 10/1 on no. BUT that doesn't change the fact that it;'s not my decision. I live in San Jose, not San Francisco. I support their right to vote out guns, in that it is their right. The small chance that it will work isn't what makes me certian in the support, it is the fact that they voted for it. I know we live in a republic, but they still do have the right to vote on such things.
dksuddeth asked.
Well, I still respect you too, though you saying it's not easy to respect me makes it uneasy. Now I'm confused.

dksuddeth

you do realize that the violent crime rate jumped 134% in 10 years after DC implemented the ban?

I hope I didn't overwhelm you with all of the news stories i posted.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I always read every word of every response in a thread I've posted in, unless I say otherwise. I learned that from Host's long - but unequaled in quality - posts. I do know that violent crime excilated in D.C. I've stated it before in my own posts in this thread, in fact (not that particular statistic, but the fact that crime in D.C. rose after the gun ban).

longbough

Sorry for being harsh.
Maybe I shouldn't have expected you to understand this. Even the suspicion of impropriety has consequences. It's not the legality that concerns me most. Persons have had their houses burnt down for allegation/suspicion alone.

For the record, I didn't "spill the beans" nor would I ever consider it. And I am not the only one who ever said that organized crime has ties to "big business."

longbough

While both the taser and OC spray are useful - they are far from "proven."

By "mace" I presume you mean pepper spray or OC spray. Of the many formulations, including ones exclusive to law enforcement, none can guarantee incapacitation. Some people simply aren't affected by it (I still don't know why). I personally know several people who have no problem being sprayed (some are LEOs and some are criminals). The most impressive "gentleman" I ever treated took on 8 full cans of LEO-only grade OC in a single encounter and had to be subdued by other means.

On the other hand I also know some unfortunate "gentlemen" who have severe life threatening asthma provoked principally by OC spray. You would think that's an incentive to behave ... it isn't.

Though I've never heard of status asthmaticus provoked in a "street encounter". But I've seen it happen in state correctional institutions. Believe me, watching someone suffocate to death by "less than lethal" use of force is horrible.

Then there's the taser.

Tasers cost around $800 each - each cartridge is extra. Do you know any civilian who even owns a taser or trained with one?
You have one cartridge loaded at a time ... what if you miss?
Modern tasers simply look like Glocks - (ease of transition for LEOs). If a cop saw you brandishing one in public - regardless of the scenario he/she will, understandably, approach you as if you had a firearm.
And, did you know that taser barbs are easily defeated by heavy clothing? Criminals do.

I'm not saying tasers and OC spray are useless. But they don't substitute the function of a gun - hence the "escalation of force" in LEO practice.

And, yes, I do have "less than lethal" means at my disposal but it's neither OC nor a taser. I'll write about it later - gtg.

Willravel

Yes, I do mean pepper or OC spray (welcome to the OC). 8 cans? Can the average person take 8 cans? The average person isn't going to be attacked more than a few times before they take adequate measures to avoid the attack (changing the route home, parking closer to the building, moving to a safer neighborhood, etc.). Lets say you have to use your can 5 times on 5 different assailants. Now let's apply the odds to this. How many people, in your experience, are not effected by pepper spray? 1/5? 1/50? 1/500? 1/5000? The average perso would probably be effected, at least for enoguht time for the asailed to run, hide or get some kind of help.
I suspect that a elather jacket or such probably would have an effect of sheilding, somewhat, but what about jeans? Very few people wear anything much thincker than denim on their legs. Most criminals, honestly, are men. Shoot wheere it matters. As for being approached by an officer, let them approach. Pilice officers have a responsibility to make sure that people aren't brandishing weapons that are illegal. Once the officer sees a permit (I'm not sure what is necessary to carry one in public, you'd have to tell me), I'm sure everything would be fine. They might follow you for a bit, but that's a good thying if you are afraid of being assaulted.
I'll await your writing about it with much anticipation.

dksuddeth

Will, you're telling people to play the odds with their life. That is plain wrong. After all that i've posted and that you've read I have concluded that you really care nothing about people doing what they feel necessary to protect themselves and their lives. All you care about is that you think guns are instruments of death and should be limited to law enforcement or military. Say that happens, I would imagine that you would eventually push for the government to remove firearms from law enforcement as well because you've heard about too many down on their luck criminals being killed when all they wanted to do was provide for their families and stealing was all they had. Take a look at the history of crime in England since they disarmed the people and the cops. If you still think getting rid of guns is going to stop crime then there is nothing short of your own family suffering at the hands of the criminal element. For your families sake, I do indeed hope that never happens, but if it does, don't say you weren't warned.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Suave

Instead of spray or taser, why not take some close combat training and get yourself a retractable baton?

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

Willravel

Then I STRONGLY suggest you get volcano insurance, because you can't play the odds when it comes to your safety. I strongly suggest that you never drive in a car, fly in a plane, or walk down the street ever again. I suggest that you never eat at resturants. I suggest that you not go out in the sun. I suggest that you let fear of something that statisticly can't hurt you run your life.

longbough

As I said before, my point is not that OC is useless ... My point is that it's not "proven." If you've ever used OC spray (and I have ... I don't like it) you'll discover that there are many things that make it an inconvenient method.

First of all, you need to practice to know where to direct the spray (it's not as easy as you might think). Just take a cardboard target and spray it for the first time ... you'll probably be surprised to know that the point of impact is not where you thought it would be. And a living person is not a stationary piece of cardboard ... an assailant is a moving target who is aware that a can is being pointed at him.

You see, one of the most essential elements of a defensive tool whether it be OC, taser or a gun is that the user be able to operate it effectively under stress - this means that simplicity and practice are paramount.

OC also has a shelf life for the propellant. I did have the experience grabbing a full cannister that was only a couple of months off only to have it squirt an anemic 2 feet. Luckily I was practicing with it ... not defending myself. I would never rely 100% on OC for personal defense.

My arguments come from real world encounters. I'm not sure where yours are coming from. The crooks you see on COPS or Wildest Police Chases are not professional thieves nor are they representative of your typical predatory sociopath - the people captured on TV are only stupid thugs.

I never tasered anyone in the crotch (If it were effective I believe it would be taught as a method ... I'm not kidding) - but a taser works by conducting through skeletal muscle tissue. That's why it's ideal to hit the abs, arms or thigh. The genitalia are not skeletal muscle - perhaps the effecacy is attenuated.

That's not the situation I'm thinking about. If you use it appropriately in self defense be prepared to be proned-out and cuffed before they check on you. That's all. Until you're checked out (doesn't matter that they immediately discover it's a taser) you will be handled like a person brandishing for the purposes of doing harm or threatening until they get the full story.

FYI - My personal "non lethal" self defense tool is a Surefire flashlight. These are not like your Maglights but are small intense sources of light that can blind someone even in broad daylight. The one I have is as small as a magic marker but will push 60 lumens.


It is activated with a thumbpress when you hold it in your fist. Reflexively pulling your arm up defensively points the lamp in the direction of a threat.

The jagged bezel is for striking someone if you have to.

At night time you can illuminate a whole alley or an empty parking lot as well.

Mechanically it's simpler to use that both OC and the taser and it's more portable than either. I don't fear bullshit lawsuits for "blinding" someone with OC or causing bogus neurological trauma through the taser. If I'm in a street encounter my objective is to get the hell out of there and I can blind someone easily with 1 second of a bright blinding light and get away.

Willravel

If you are smart enough to carry OC spray or a taser, then you should be smart enoughg how to use it correctly, and how it should be maintained, just like those who own any weapon.

Now this next part confuses the crap out of me.
I wrote:
To whcih you responded :
Do criminals not wear pants? Are most criminals women? Are you even reading what I write? You lecture me on not listening you you, and yet you don't listen to me. That's hypocritical.
Yes, but the lower abdominals are right under the crotch. Legs are the largest muscel grouping in the human body, so I suggest them. Again I must ask, are jeans enough to keep the current from effecting the legs?
Then that is a problem with law enforcement that needs to be addressed.

longbough

point taken. I misunderstood.

that's NOT a problem with law enforcement.
They are doing their job.
You just need to accept that you have to comply given the situation. It doesn't matter if you're the victim or not. That's what they're supposed to do.

If I was involved in such a situation then I accept that I might have a few bruises or scrapes or have to sit in the back of a police car for a minute or so if I have to.

Willravel

I appreciate it. You are more than an excelnt adversary in dicsussion.
Are you required to have a permit to own a taser or the eye spray? If not, then the back of the patrol car is reasonable, but if you are, then why go through the trouble? If someone owned a gun legally and was thrown into the back of a police car inspite of their legal possession and not breaking any laws, wouldn't the pro-gun people get really pissed about it?

dksuddeth

to quote you, apples and oranges. can I destroy a volcano with a pistol? but I can stop a criminal with a gun.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

You said to protect your family from a threat, no matter what the odds are of being effected by it. It is possible that within the next week there will be volcano in your own back yard. The odds aren't good (roughly a 1:15,000,000,000 chance), but it's certianally possible. You act as if the odds don't matter, I prove that they do.

What steps are you taking to protect your family from cell phone cancer? What steps are you taking to prevent your kids from being brainwashed by MTV? What step are you taking to prevent your wife from being victimized by diseases such as the flesh eating bacteria?

You are being selectively protective, and it shows that there is alterior motive behind your wanting to own a gun. You can't use your family as an excuse if you don't protect them from other possible dangers.

dksuddeth

pardon all references to attacks, but you're being selectively stupid. You know that NATURAL disasters are semi predictable at best, which is why we don't live in new orleans, st louis, california, or tornado alley. but criminals, as unpredictable as they are, can be fought against UNLIKE a tornado, volcano, earthquake, or hurricane. to use this as an argument just shows that you know you don't have a better argument than what i've given.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

This thread is heading in a direction that I'm not comfortable with. I want to continue to show each and every member of tfp, including dksuddeth, the respect that they deserve, but this thread has caused me to lose my temper. I'm going to take a temporary hiatus from it.

dksuddeth

Please forgive me for any disrespect I've shown you. This is a very touchy and passionate subject for all involved and we all feel strongly about our side in this. I sincerely apologize for any ill remarks to you and I hope that we can continue to discuss this later with cooler heads.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

Good points.

There are some parents that become the "over protective" parents. I had one aunt growing up telling my cousin in the 80's when walking about San Francisco to not touch anything as he may contract something like AIDS (this was before it was shown to not be contracted in those manners.) At 30+ she's still over protective of him.

Does she want firearms in the house? Yes, she does because she grew up in the Philippines where the guards stationed at the house were armed. Here in the US she cannot afford an armed guard.

I know other families that are over protective of their kids in many manners, but do not subscribe to protection via guns.

While I would like to own a gun in NYC, I also know that it could be bad to own one here in a densly populated area where a stray bullet could reach a neighbor's apartment and kill someone innocently sleeping next door.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

longbough

One difference is that, in discussions of this sort I don't see you (or the "other side") as an adversary. I believe I have a reasonable perspective and will discuss my views with anyone open to reason. If I didn't think you were at all reasonable I wouldn't be wasting my time on this forum ... I have much better things to do. It may be an academic exercise for many people but this issue is important to me and bears consequence on the way I conduct my life.

"Adversarial" interaction between "pro-gun" and "pro-gun control" people are counterproductive. It's important to aknowledge that both sides are essentially looking for the same thing - a safer way to live for ourselves and our families.

But if you want to pass legislation about firearms it's important to get the opinion of people who work in the fields of law enforcement, criminal psych, epidemiology, health care, etc. Unfortunately, the popular media doesn't enforce that perspective - it is in their interest in promoting a politically expedient view. The popular vote, like popular opinion, is sorely misguided if the general populace is misinformed.

e.g. how many people who voted for the "Assault Weapons Ban" really understood what it was about? Most people believed what they saw on TV - that it was about machine-guns and automatic weapons - when that was not the case at all (obtaining automatic weapons is already restricted - and the "Assault Weapons Ban" has nothing to do with them - it's a misnomer). Unfortunately, everything "pro-gun" people said was depicted as attempts to obscure the issue ... when the opposite was true.

Believe it or not, the responsible gun-owners I know have no problem with that. If I am involved in an encounter and I am spotted with a gun or taser or whatever in my hand and have to be cuffed or "secured" for a few minutes ... what's the difference other than a loss of pride or the sense of personal control? Like most responsible gun-owners I empathize with the LEO's job and understand what has to be done under the circumstance.

My brother doesn't share my views or experiences. He lives in a $3 million house in Palo Alto. One day, he saw a bunch of federal agents moving on a neighbor's house - My brother being curious stepped out on his porch to get a better look - He was startled when one agent turned to him threateningly and ordered him to get back into his house. Now, the neighbor was taken away without incident but my upset brother called me - He understood why he was ordered to get back in but he was offended since his porch is his own property and he wasn't doing anything wrong. I told him:
1). If you see something going down to stay in the house. That was stupid to "get a better look." In fact, it'd probably be best to stay away from the windows until it was over. Curiosity be damned.
2). And if he hadn't complied he would have been cuffed and secured just to eliminate him as a "variable."

Most people don't understand that their personal pride is a secondary consideration. Don't get in the way of a cop's job.

dksuddeth

From the Chicago Tribune: Man, 26, is fatally shot after traffic accident

A man was shot and killed Sunday night following a traffic accident on the South Side, police said.

The man, 26, who was not identified, was in a vehicle that was struck by another vehicle at about 7:50 p.m. in the 7300 block of South Indiana Avenue, said a Chicago police spokesman.

After the accident, the occupants of the two cars started arguing, and a man from the car that struck the first vehicle allegedly shot the victim in the head, according to a preliminary police report. It was not known if the alleged gunman was the driver or a passenger in the second vehicle, the spokesman said.

The suspect, who fled the scene, had not been arrested by 11:30 p.m. Sunday, said the spokesman.

Now I'm sure glad that chicago has that handgun ban or that killer might have gotten shot.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

longbough

dksuddeth

Ok, how many gun control 'myths' did this story just debunk?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jwoody

No idea.

10?

65?

3?

You're going to have to spell it out for me, I haven't a fucking clue.

__________________
.

dksuddeth

i'll give you a hint on the first one...

that only law enforcement/military are responsible enough to have guns.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."