[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are more likely to pay someone else to do it for them. Don’t be so naive.[/quote]
Fair enough. But still, with so much to lose, they are going to be more hesitant about being near violence.
There is a huge difference in mentality between a senator who cheated on his wife but has Presidential aspirations one day and the corner kid slingin coke who has no expectation of seeing his 25th birthday and has grown up in a culture absolutely DOMINATED by violence.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you. [/quote]
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are more likely to pay someone else to do it for them. Don’t be so naive.
Fair enough. But still, with so much to lose, they are going to be more hesitant about being near violence.
[/quote]
So you are also an expert in criminal psychology?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
They are more likely to pay someone else to do it for them. Don’t be so naive.
Fair enough. But still, with so much to lose, they are going to be more hesitant about being near violence.
So you are also an expert in criminal psychology?[/quote]
I am not an expert at all. But I have studied it concurrently with other self-defense subjects… and pretty heavily. Violence is a subject that fascinates the shit out of me.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you.
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
[/quote]
They are not rare here.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you.
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
[/quote]
Many home invasion happen without a person being armed because many burglars have learned that their sentence will be much lighter if it is committed unarmed. But still, should one not have the right to shoot a thief dead? Cops can do it all they want, all they have to do is get their buddies to back their story up.
And even still, home invasions are beside the point. Just knowing that someone might be armed would be enough of a deterrent agianst committing a crime. Just compare states like AZ to CA. The former has open carry laws whereas in CA one would never see someone besides law enforcement carrying a side arm. All we need to do is compare per capita violent crime statistics to see how much of a deterrent open carry laws can be, for example.
Heck, I went to visit a friend in AZ and I was in the grocery store and nearly knocked down an old-timer carrying a side arm. He was even wearing a cowboy hat. I bet no one fucks with grandpa.
I don’t know why Europe tend to be less crime ridden than the US of A. I guess you can chalk it up to all of our genes – you know many criminals were sentenced to the American colonies to help clean up the streets of Europe. Maybe the royals were on to something.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you.
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
Many home invasion happen without a person being armed because many burglars have learned that their sentence will be much lighter if it is committed unarmed. But still, should one not have the right to shoot a thief dead? Cops can do it all they want, all they have to do is get their buddies to back their story up.
And even still, home invasions are beside the point. Just knowing that someone might be armed would be enough of a deterrent agianst committing a crime. Just compare states like AZ to CA. The former has open carry laws whereas in CA one would never see someone besides law enforcement carrying a side arm. All we need to do is compare per capita violent crime statistics to see how much of a deterrent open carry laws can be, for example.
Heck, I went to visit a friend in AZ and I was in the grocery store and nearly knocked down an old-timer carrying a side arm. He was even wearing a cowboy hat. I bet no one fucks with grandpa.
I don’t know why Europe tend to be less crime ridden than the US of A. I guess you can chalk it up to all of our genes – you know many criminals were sentenced to the American colonies to help clean up the streets of Europe. Maybe the royals were on to something.[/quote]
…i thought ‘home invasion’ meant something more than burglary: a violent intrusion with the intent to physically harm the residents if they don’t hand over their valuables. Burglary happens over here too ofcourse, but in the oldfashioned style: sneaky, preferably when nobody’s home. Am i right to think that? If i lived in a place where violent home invasions happen too often, i’d definitly want a firearm in the house…
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Look to other countries. They have all implemented widespread gun-control. Homicide has declined significantly in those countries. [/quote]
Like in Canada, where after spending over $1 Billion on a ‘gun registry’ the police/politicians realized its illegal guns that the criminals use to commit crimes. (Notice the redundancy in that last sentence?)
So, the fact that Steve McNair’s girlfriend killed him with an illegally purchased gun helps or hurts your theory?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
tom63 wrote:
The first gun control laws ion this country were to keep “darkies” from getting guns. they were enacted in the south. The second biggest gun law, the Sullivan law ( big in historical importance), was enacted to keep guns from those Dagos and crazy communist e4astern Europeans.
I’m not trying to throw out slurs, I just want people to understand that these laws were instituted due to racism, nothing more. The NRA recently won a lawsuit against the San Fran public housing authority to allow residents to own guns.
Funny thing, Conservative white males think that poor blacks should have a right to self defense, but white liberals don’t. In 1876 or so when the first gun control laws were instituted, it was southern democrats that came up with them.
I suspected as much by looking at the overall picture. I was floored by the recent decision to let Washington DC homes owners to bear arms in their homes. Floored by the fact that they were denied the right the whole time. WTF? How could THAT have happened. Then the news were filming peoples and police officers reactions to the decision. All were very positive and all were black. Right then and there is made sense.
Im sure the govt knows and is aware of everything were aware of. There must be some political machine in the works with a vested interest in keeping some people, for a lack of a better word, down… [/quote]
Weapon control has been practiced by the elite over the commoner or minority or poorer forever. Most gun control laws in this country started with a racist bent. To keep " those people " from having weapons.
When the crossbow came out, Rome and the royalty wanted it banned because the regular guy can now cause a problem. Same with guns when they first started. There goes all that night and samurai crap when some guy behind a tree can hit you at 50 paces. now let’s talk cartridges and smokeless powder.
I can easily kill a man at 400500 yards with my deer rfile. You see how useless knighthood is now?
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
uh, gun control IS about public safety.[/quote]
Wrong.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you.
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
They are not rare here. [/quote]
One happened last year in the town where I attended high school. three large males beat up two elderly people. They were caught, which is good, but one 38 special would ahve made a huge difference.
What the you don’t need a gun crowd does not understand, which is a whole lot, but basically I am a sample size of me. You cannot take general population stats and make them apply to a sample size of me. One home invasion is to much for me. One mugging is to much.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Look to other countries. They have all implemented widespread gun-control. Homicide has declined significantly in those countries. In fact, in the U.S. almost all gun-related deaths are committed by legally owned weapons. We aren’t talking about a robber breaking into your house here, most killings are the result of a crime of passion. Things get heated and someone pulls a gun. For example, Steve McNair, take away the gun and she wouldn’t have killed him.
There is nothing wrong with someone owning a hunting rifle for shooting animals if that is your thing. But owning a Glock or an AK47 is ridiculously dangerous.
Now those of you who believe that Obama’s evil Communist Government wants to implement gun-control to make you weaker people and submit to its police state. Well, you are insane and a lost cause…[/quote]
You’re an idiot. I am not dangerous with my guns to nay but those who mean me harm. I own Glock, which are just semi auto pistols, and some semi auto rifles. They don’t hurt anyone. They don’t jump out of my safe and roam the street looking for victims. They are tools that I use for various reasons and circumstances.
I own guns for several reasons, home defense, personal defense, hunting, collecting target practice and because I like them. I have weapons that coudl kill a man at a mile and a half. and close range self defense weapons, such as semi auto rifles, shotguns, revolvers and pistols.
For you fellas that don’t like guns and don’t know crpa about guns, tell me what caliber a Glock is? what caliber is the AK 47? and M4? Specifically. these are easy questions for those who have a clue. You don’t know what they are, you don’t know what they or how they can be used.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Gregus wrote:
When you’re in your home and you’re attacked or something you can call the Police to take pictures. That’s all they will be good for after someone has their way with you.
…how often do home invasions occur in the USA? Over here they are very rare, you see…
They are not rare here.
One happened last year in the town where I attended high school. three large males beat up two elderly people. They were caught, which is good, but one 38 special would ahve made a huge difference.
What the you don’t need a gun crowd does not understand, which is a whole lot, but basically I am a sample size of me. You cannot take general population stats and make them apply to a sample size of me. One home invasion is to much for me. One mugging is to much.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Look to other countries. They have all implemented widespread gun-control. Homicide has declined significantly in those countries. In fact, in the U.S. almost all gun-related deaths are committed by legally owned weapons. We aren’t talking about a robber breaking into your house here, most killings are the result of a crime of passion. Things get heated and someone pulls a gun. For example, Steve McNair, take away the gun and she wouldn’t have killed him.
There is nothing wrong with someone owning a hunting rifle for shooting animals if that is your thing. But owning a Glock or an AK47 is ridiculously dangerous.
Now those of you who believe that Obama’s evil Communist Government wants to implement gun-control to make you weaker people and submit to its police state. Well, you are insane and a lost cause…[/quote]
Countries which have instituted gun control do NOT experience a decrease in homicide.
Almost all gun-related deaths are NOT done with legally owned guns. The gun that was used to kill Steve McNair was NOT legally owned.
I would ask you why you think AK47’s and Glocks are dangerous and hunting rifle are not, but I already know your answer. It’s because anti-firearm propaganda has made you believe that the former guns are devastating instruments of battle, while the latter is somehow benign and rustic. In actuality, the AK and Glock in all available calibers both fire rounds which are much less powerful than all but a tiny fraction of hunting rifles-and those are used for hunting varmints.
Please, stop drinking the citizen disarmament kool-aid and start learning some facts.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Burglary happens over here too ofcourse, but in the oldfashioned style: sneaky, preferably when nobody’s home. Am i right to think that? If i lived in a place where violent home invasions happen too often, i’d definitly want a firearm in the house…
[/quote]
Yeah, I suppose I still think of burglary as you describe it as “home invasion” which encompasses a more broad generalization of the class of crimes it describes – whether one is armed or not, whether it is a home or business, whether a black person or not lives or works there, etc. Going into someone’s home uninvited is home invasion as I understand it.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
uh, gun control IS about public safety.[/quote]
No. That is the excuse that is used to justify a major power grab by the government in order to make people vulnerable and dependent upon the government. That is why the same people who gave us the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE, also gave us the second amendment.
[quote]dtheyer wrote:
Look to other countries. They have all implemented widespread gun-control. Homicide has declined significantly in those countries. In fact, in the U.S. almost all gun-related deaths are committed by legally owned weapons. We aren’t talking about a robber breaking into your house here, most killings are the result of a crime of passion. Things get heated and someone pulls a gun. For example, Steve McNair, take away the gun and she wouldn’t have killed him.[/quote]
So far you are an ignorant little troll. In Britain, every year since the 1997 gun control act made it almost impossible to legally own a gun the incidence of gun crime and murder has increased. In the first five years after the gun control act the incedence doubled.
During that same time the murder rate in the US has steadily declined. Despite the lossening of gun ownership and concealed carry laws.
[quote]
There is nothing wrong with someone owning a hunting rifle for shooting animals if that is your thing. But owning a Glock or an AK47 is ridiculously dangerous.[/quote]
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment is the right to provide for ones own security. Glocks and AK’s are perfect for that purpose. Hunting firearms are not well suited to providing security. If the second amendment is ever limited to allowing us hunting weapons only then this important security right becomes dependent upon the legality of what the animal rights crowd call “blood sports”.
[quote]
Now those of you who believe that Obama’s evil Communist Government wants to implement gun-control to make you weaker people and submit to its police state. Well, you are insane and a lost cause…[/quote]
They are euro-style socialists. Socialists want people to be as dependent upon the government as they possibly can.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
dtheyer wrote:
uh, gun control IS about public safety.
No. That is the excuse that is used to justify a major power grab by the government in order to make people vulnerable and dependent upon the government. That is why the same people who gave us the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE, also gave us the second amendment. [/quote]
I am completely and utterly stunned when I hear that people want the government to be the only ones with guns.
What sense does that make to anyone who knows any kind of History?