• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Gunman kills 5 in Alabama, another kills 15 in Germany

quick small isolated question.

you bring protection up but don't you believe having a weapon in your home increases the chances of it or a similar/worse weapon being used against you and your family?

let's not concentrate on anything else, just that logic that having a weapon

increases the probability of a thief having a weapon
increases the probability of it being used accidentally to injure al oved one or yourself
is not the most efficient method of protecting your family/home.


Your first point is an obvious. A criminal in all likely hood is going to have a weapon.

Does it increase the probability of it being used accidentally? Yes, for people who aren't trained properly but in reality there are no 'accidental shootings'. Anyone who says it was an accident is lying. If you are cleaning a loaded gun, you are an idiot. Simple as that. There is a strict three point check system you use with weapons before cleaning and or disassembling them.

How is not the most efficient way of protecting your family? If you say restraining order or security system, good luck. Do you know the average length it takes police to respond to a 911 call? Provided you can call 911, its approx. 5-10 minutes at the minimum. If you believe a restraining order will keep you safe you are dead wrong. A security system issues a loud siren and if you have Brinks calls you to make sure everything is okay. I don't necessarily believe a criminal is going to just turn and run away especially if they had prior motivation for their said intrusion. Unless you have a more 'efficient' way of protecting your family, I'd like to hear it.

Then again I'm not sure if most of what you were asking was hypothetical.

Also thought some might be interested in this link.

 
Let's try and imagine a country that allows every citizen to carry an armed weapon concealed or not everywhere they go, whether it be an automatic rifle or pistol. Would you feel safer knowing every single person had a firearm on them? What do you think would happen in a scenario like that?

That only the stupid would try to commit a crime

Or someone with a deathwish. In which case they would be subdued quickly.
 
It's not unusual for a robbery to be an inside job. Like when a person has work done in their house, they're letting strangers see their house. It happened to a house in my neighborhood recently..
Not unusual at all.


No one was talking about AK-47's..
This guy used an AK.


I'm applying faux logic? You're the one saying having an effective means of self-defense is not protecting yourself. You're simply buying into the media who, when they see a shooting, call for stricter gun legislation without fully understanding the issue; which is that said legislation would only affect the people who were not breaking the law.

This is half true half bs.You're correct in saying that stricter regulations would affect a majority of responsible gun owners.The point is that: An AK is designed for one thing= To kill humans. You cant hunt game with it. So the recreationists or gun enthusiasts get their panties in a bunch over this with that tired old "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" Crap.
The mantra of the gun manufacturing lobby.
 
alright, two things

the most efficient way of crime prevention would be to remove the motivations to commit crime.

the second would be to remove the opportunity

the third would be to defend yourself against it.

i'm not saying calling the cops is going to help anyone either. security systems are decent deterrents. So are guard dogs, keeping lights on and all other sorts, making sure people are around, dogs are locked, property is secure, nothing tempting to the eye.

by the time the notion of using a weapon comes into it, a crime has already been commited (burglary) so two lines of protection have already been busted. It'd be like wearing suncream during a nuclear explosion. Too lil, too late.

and its not like even if one person who has a gun license can operate one, the entire household can either. Having a weapon increases your chances of yourself being shot. Criminals normally use weapons as a means of intimidation, if you show up with your own gun, you indicate you aren't going to be intimidated. A criminal will think about running or putting you down. whether they decide to open fire on your depends on a whole plethra of things but it becomes more likely than if you were subdued and a non-threat.

also if it comes down to a gun fight, there is every opportunity, you and your family may get caught in the cross fire. not to mention the higher probability of gun misuse by giving anyone acess to it that shouldn't be. I mean surely it's a similar locking mechanism that locks your front door that locks away your gun. If you're worried enough about one's home security to get a gun, then you can't undermine the ability of others to access it either.
 
That not every criminal is like DeNiro in Heat who has access to a damn good armory, surrounds themselves with other professional criminals and is very intelligent.

They're generally Bucktooth McGerkins who dropped out of high school and are limited to what wal-mart sells.
you don't have to be intelligent to get a gun or anything illegally, you simply need to have the contacts and the capital to buy it.

it's the very people who design this new equipment that are the ones selling it backhandedly.

look at the cybernetics world. everytime a new computer safety software comes out, it's ex-employees that manage to hack it. Or the very people who designed it.

you'll probably find in the whole escalating rock regime, it's the same person supplying both the criminals and the home owners with weapons. It's not like they give a crap, all their want is their profit. The morality loses its way to the beautiful sound of a cash register.
 
And that won't change no matter how many laws are passed.
 
alright, two things

the most efficient way of crime prevention would be to remove the motivations to commit crime.

the second would be to remove the opportunity

the third would be to defend yourself against it.

i'm not saying calling the cops is going to help anyone either. security systems are decent deterrents. So are guard dogs, keeping lights on and all other sorts, making sure people are around, dogs are locked, property is secure, nothing tempting to the eye.

by the time the notion of using a weapon comes into it, a crime has already been commited (burglary) so two lines of protection have already been busted. It'd be like wearing suncream during a nuclear explosion. Too lil, too late.

and its not like even if one person who has a gun license can operate one, the entire household can either. Having a weapon increases your chances of yourself being shot. Criminals normally use weapons as a means of intimidation, if you show up with your own gun, you indicate you aren't going to be intimidated. A criminal will think about running or putting you down. whether they decide to open fire on your depends on a whole plethra of things but it becomes more likely than if you were subdued and a non-threat.

also if it comes down to a gun fight, there is every opportunity, you and your family may get caught in the cross fire. not to mention the higher probability of gun misuse by giving anyone acess to it that shouldn't be. I mean surely it's a similar locking mechanism that locks your front door that locks away your gun. If you're worried enough about one's home security to get a gun, then you can't undermine the ability of others to access it either.

Do you own a firearm? Have you attended a training course for the proper use of a firearm? They cover all of this. I believe wholeheartedly that when you purchase a firearm that you, the purchaser, must be required to take this course, and you should also be required to have a mental history background check.

Your logic is flawed in that you believe a criminal is going to subdue you and just leave you alone. I'm not going to go into to much detail because I feel like if you had taken this course, the one I have which was opinions and first hand experiences of ex SWAT members, retired Military, current military, and current police officers you would have a better grasp of home encounter situations. I was told numerous stories of people that saved their lives and whole family.

I used to have some of the same logic as you and while they are good deterrents. A gun is your last line of defense. I feel you should have all of these things but not everyone can afford all of these things. Guns are cheaper and if they followed what I had recommended not because they are required but because it will make them smarter and less likely to kill someone 'accidentally'.
 
Last edited:
quick small isolated question.

you bring protection up but don't you believe having a weapon in your home increases the chances of it or a similar/worse weapon being used against you and your family?

let's not concentrate on anything else, just that logic that having a weapon

increases the probability of a thief having a weapon
increases the probability of it being used accidentally to injure al oved one or yourself
is not the most efficient method of protecting your family/home.

How does my having a weapon increase the chances of a criminal having a weapon? Chances are good that they already have a weapon.

You act as though normal people can't be trained or taught how to use a weapon correctly. Normal people probably have better arms skills than 75% of the police forces in the US and 90% of criminals. I think preperation for the event of being robbed is good.

it's a trick, there is no king of england...

:eek:

I get that you're kidding, but in all seriousness that's the reason that we have the right to have weapons. Because not all that long ago we gained freedom from an opressive dictator. Don't you think that WW2, the conflicts in the middle-east, and really any other country suffering under a dictator would be different if that government freely gave their citizens the right to have weapons?

Let's try and imagine a country that allows every citizen to carry an armed weapon concealed or not everywhere they go, whether it be an automatic rifle or pistol. Would you feel safer knowing every single person had a firearm on them? What do you think would happen in a scenario like that?

Firstly, I do live in a country that's like that for the most part. Ever US citizen (with a few restrictions on criminals, and certain state laws) has the right to carry weapons. For instance if you live in VA you can, right now, buy a .45 and strap that bad boy to your side in plain sight and carry it into Wal-Mart.

Secondly, Let me as you a question: If you're trying to rape someone or mug them and you walk past someone with a .45 strapped to their side don't you think you would probably skip that one and wait for someone else who isn't packing?

Criminals prey on the weak and sometimes carrying a gun is a great way of making yourself stronger against an enemy.

I don't want to sound paranoid because as a private citizen I don't open carry or concealed carry on a regular basis because I'm really not that fearful of attack. However I think that sending a clear message to criminals that Americans are NOT afraid to protect themselves isn't a bad thing.
 
when i talk about accidentally injuring someone, i'm also talking about in a gun fight situation
 
Do you own a firearm? Have you attended a training course for the proper use of a firearm? They cover all of this. I believe wholeheartedly that when you purchase a firearm that you, the purchaser, must be required to take this course, and you should also be required to have a mental history background check.
I don't live in a country where can own a firearm.

is this course a lawful requirement. I think its a good idea but it should also include all members of that household taking it as well, as least the safety aspects of it. Most home gun accidents aren't by the person who owns the weapon. the holder isn't always goign to be around either if one is being burgled so it is the responsibility of all the adults to know how to operate it and for all the minors to know not to play with it.


Your logic is flawed in that you believe a criminal is going to subdue you and just leave you alone. I'm not going to go into to much detail because I feel like if you had taken this course, the one I have which was opinions and first hand experiences of ex SWAT members, retired Military, current military, and current police officers you would have a better grasp of home encounter situations. I was told numerous stories of people that saved their lives and whole family.
It's different strokes for different folks. truth be told, most robberies operate differently because all criminals operate differently.

I would say though i believe if someone's intentions are purely to rob you of some cash, car, credit cards etc, this isn't information they can find in an instant so they need you to have some form of cooperation. That is why i would assume they carry a weapon in order to intimidate you into that. It would be more of a prop than a tool.

it ten becomes an active weapon if confronted with another weapon as a mode of defense.

i'm not doubting its ability to save a life, but so can a bassball bat or a knife or martial arts. There also equal amounts of stories about how its put the lives of people at risk unnecessarily, rambo parents shooting up the place and hitting innocents in the crossfire.
I used to have some of the same logic as you and while they are good deterrents. A gun is your last line of defense. I feel you should have all of these things but not everyone can afford all of these things. Guns are cheaper and if they followed what I had recommended not because they are required but because it will make them smarter and less likely to kill someone 'accidentally'.
I think most good detterrants are simple ideas BUT we aren't told about them because everyone wants us to go and buy the new security technology or the latest model weapons. It's a shame but the information we get isn't ever going to be informed once cash is changing hands.

if i absolutely felt i had to have a weapon, it would be a last resort against all other options already being implemented. If someone has gone into so much trouble to bypass everything, then they have some serious intentions.

I just think many people use it apparently as a first line of defence but if you use a similar mindset to the 'carrying a knife makes you more likely to get stabbed', it does increase the chances of a firefight happening in your home and your loved ones being injured. it also doesn't make your home any less of a target

besides all it takes is for an unarmed criminal to visit a few armed homes to realise he needs to start packing weapons as well. The gun doesn't put them off, it just makes them want to be on an equal or level pegging.

the very same pattern of violence increase can be seen between interactiosn with gangs. the rough physical assaults of the 80s have been replaced with dry bys and automatic weapon killings. the introduction of weapons to either side hasn't made their activity any less likely.
 
when i talk about accidentally injuring someone, i'm also talking about in a gun fight situation

Again if you have skills and abilities with a firearm you aren't likely to cause the accident. If the attacker causes and accident it was probably actually on purpose.
 
it still increases your chances. especially if you get in a close proximity tussle. i'm sure your experience with conflict may give you bias but when andrenaline starts rushing through and all other mixes of emotions, the cucumber rationale of training is not always around.

and not all firearm users are skilled with it, especially in an uncontrolled environment.
 
it still increases your chances. especially if you get in a close proximity tussle. i'm sure your experience with conflict may give you bias but when andrenaline starts rushing through and all other mixes of emotions, the cucumber rationale of training is not always around.

and not all firearm users are skilled with it, especially in an uncontrolled environment.

A sad fact of gun laws today and the general outlook of guns. I think that people should be trained to use a weapon. While adrenaline will make a situation hard to control it gives someone with training just the edge they need to make a horrible situation a little less horrible.
 
true. adrenaline is a double edge sword

i'd go with what paradyme said that all gun users should have to pass a course first, with the same mentality as driving. additional things on that should be weapon servicing and a safety course for all other adults and passive members of the home over 8 to make sure they don't meddle and its safe.

i also think the safest thing a gunman to do to protect his home is put up a sign saying there is a weapon on the premises, hopefully this should put off even the most tempted of criminals.

i would believe we can make a society without increasing the means we have to settle things. As you may be aware of, i think the way we deal with a lot of social problems are not ideal and the means we use to deal with them (at best) serve as short term maintenance to the bigger issue.

i go back to one of my original statements saying maybe people should be more community driven, at least that way, you are less likely to shoot up people that have gone out of their way for you and spot issues in people's lives to make sure they are resolved with, instead of having thigns like this happen.
 
A sign isn't going to stop someone from breaking in. Besides, criminals don't go "out of their way for people" nor do they contribute anything to society aside from increasing crime stats
 
If a mother****er has a knife, I bet you he only gets to off about 1 or two people in one sitting before he gets overpowered. I don't care about the will to kill, I care about lowering the body count in ratio to one person.

Here's a link where a guy killed 8 children with a knife and injured 15 more, including two teachers--the Osaka School Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre


Mass knife murders may be much more rare that mass gun murders, but they can still happen.
 
true. adrenaline is a double edge sword

i'd go with what paradyme said that all gun users should have to pass a course first, with the same mentality as driving. additional things on that should be weapon servicing and a safety course for all other adults and passive members of the home over 8 to make sure they don't meddle and its safe.

Agree.

i also think the safest thing a gunman to do to protect his home is put up a sign saying there is a weapon on the premises, hopefully this should put off even the most tempted of criminals.

Agree.

i would believe we can make a society without increasing the means we have to settle things. As you may be aware of, i think the way we deal with a lot of social problems are not ideal and the means we use to deal with them (at best) serve as short term maintenance to the bigger issue.

I would only hope that, not believe it.

i go back to one of my original statements saying maybe people should be more community driven, at least that way, you are less likely to shoot up people that have gone out of their way for you and spot issues in people's lives to make sure they are resolved with, instead of having thigns like this happen.

Again, I agree but emphasis on should.
 
you don't have to be intelligent to get a gun or anything illegally, you simply need to have the contacts and the capital to buy it.

Contacts? In the US you can just walk into a gun show and buy one from any private dealer and walk right out. No background check necessary. Kids can purchase them too if they have the cash. We're not talking about drugs here, so contacts are not necessary.
 
Hey at leat guns aren't as bad as knives. Let's not forget the Mansons.
 
And your family is more likely to be killed in a car accident than to be killed by the gun in your house. That doesn't keep you from driving. Yes, those accidents happen. But if you're responsible and take the necessary precautions, you can eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the risk.
.

My point is, let sleeping dog lie, and if a bear wonders in your yard, let it pass on throug, don't run up and kick it.

Burglaries with home invasions (unless your in a bad area) tend to be rare anyway, i'd say 75% of burglaries are when the people are not at home, and of the following 25% probably less then half even carry a gun with them.

sure there's always the occasional danger of a criminal willing to shoot and rob, but it's highly unlikely. Even when they have a gun. Hell even when bank or convenience store robberies happen, kills or shootings are actually in an extremely low percentile. Burglars are more likely to get hostile, if you act hostile towards them. It's a common fact, with human beings as well as the animal kingdom.

Guns just make "Gun-Ho" people feel safe, which i guess is fine, but not something i want in my household. Nor do i think should be in most. Don't provoke someone breaking into your house. Nuff said. Most would rather go to jail for a robbery, then murder anyway.
 
it will however reduce and limit the amount of people they can kill within a given time

how many stories do you hear about a crazy kid with a knife killing 15 kids.

after a couple of stabs, he'd get floored, maybe 2 fatalities max.

i know i would rather take my chances with a dude with a rock than with a gun, which one would you rather have?


sure it won;t help on its own, but you can't deny it won't be effective without some additional community outreach and a better relationship between kids, their parents, peers and communities. If you started giving a crap about the people you live around, you're less inclined to want to shoot them up, no matter how pissed off you are.

For those of you who don't seem to understand...knives are sharp. You needn't stab someone to do damage, slicing with a knife makes worse wounds, exposes vital organs, opens arteries and veins...etc.

A person could run through a crowd holding a knife and do faster damage than with a gun. Only real difference is, once people catch on to what you're doing, you have to chase them down to hurt them, unlike a gun.
 
A sign isn't going to stop someone from breaking in. Besides, criminals don't go "out of their way for people" nor do they contribute anything to society aside from increasing crime stats
did you know by simply having a bleeping light in your vehicle, mimmicking a security alarm, it reduces the chances of your vehicle being broken into.

signs do help as a deterrant, for opportunistic criminals.

it's also not great to point criminals out as bad people not contributing. not that it adds anything to this thread but all it takes to change anyone of us into a criminal is a drastic change in circumstances, the right type of opportunity and enough motivation.

Simple case here would be to ask a home insurer. all home owners pay insurance on their properties. ask them what type of things would reduce their premiums and they would advocate similar things to what i'm saying. The reason is they have the statistics to show properties with these types of safe guards reduce the risk of bulglary occuring.

ask them how much having a gun on the property would affect their premiums. likely answer with be pretty much zippo. You know why, because the GUN companies would be singing if off the rooftops.

home insurers have the greatest amount of knowledge

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/businesses/robbery_and_theft/reduce_risk.html

here's a uk version of tips to reduce bulglary. i know there's nothing about guns there but i can't find anything of an american equivalent
 
Here's a link where a guy killed 8 children with a knife and injured 15 more, including two teachers--the Osaka School Massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre


Mass knife murders may be much more rare that mass gun murders, but they can still happen.
alright let get this into perspective.

an adult man could kill 8 children without any weapons.

he only killed 2 adults.

that's the main point.

only 2 people with the power to stop him got killed.

are you using 8 year old lives as a form of defending guns? that's not cool
 
Contacts? In the US you can just walk into a gun show and buy one from any private dealer and walk right out. No background check necessary. Kids can purchase them too if they have the cash. We're not talking about drugs here, so contacts are not necessary.
i was talking more about the automatic equipment and so on and so forth, not to mention special calibre rounds and what not.

but then again, i didn't realise how open it is. Is it true you can may not be able to be old enough to drink and drive, but you can buy a gun at like 16/17?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"