Gun Control

[Dizzle229]

Actually, it's not legal here either. Unless they're a clear and direct threat to you or someone else's safety, you can't shoot. The safety of your CD player doesn't count.

[magekillr]

Actually, it's not legal here either. Unless they're a clear and direct threat to you or someone else's safety, you can't shoot. The safety of your CD player doesn't count.

 

 

 

Not true. In Texas, you can shoot someone for jacking your CD player. Joe Horn is a perfect example. You can even use deadly force if someone is stealing someone else's property.

[Dizzle229]

Find me something that isn't legal in Texas. Up here in New York, and in most states, your CD player is not a member of the family.

[scootlaboot]

Find me something that isn't legal in Texas. Up here in New York, and in most states, your CD player is not a member of the family.

 

 

 

Gay Marriage?

[Barihawk]

Actually, it's not legal here either. Unless they're a clear and direct threat to you or someone else's safety, you can't shoot. The safety of your CD player doesn't count.

 

 

 

Not true. In Texas, you can shoot someone for jacking your CD player. Joe Horn is a perfect example. You can even use deadly force if someone is stealing someone else's property.

 

 

 

Err, no you can't. I just asked a lawyer friend of mine. The Castle clause only protects those who shoot in self defense to protect themselves or a member of their families. The only exception is when the intruder is armed, in which intent to cause harm to anyone inside is assumed.

 

 

 

That being said, the law is interpreted by county judges. They might call things differently in far west Texas than they do in the rest of the state.

 

 

 

But yes, I totally agree with your repeated and radical use of stereotypes. I've called you out on this in the past. I'm not defending myself, I'm defending the rest of the people down here. Sure, there might be a few "hicks" but the vast majority of Texans (and southerners in general) are no different than you. That goes for all of you.

 

 

 

Also remember that many of the cases in which a criminal is shot in this circumstances, it happens to someone who is in the lowest levels of social strata (and before you say "why waste money on a gun!" it's probably passed down) who has felt that they have worked very hard for their possessions and likely does not have the insurance to cover that. Oh yeah, like in the Joe Horn incident.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not defending myself, I'm defending the rest of the people down here. Sure, there might be a few "hicks" but the vast majority of Texans (and southerners in general) are no different than you. That goes for all of you.

 

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that's crap. Some Texans and myself will find many differences, not because of some stereotype that's been handed to me from the "liberals", but simply because our lives and culture are fundamentally different.

 

 

 

Also remember that many of the cases in which a criminal is shot in this circumstances, it happens to someone who is in the lowest levels of social strata (and before you say "why waste money on a gun!" it's probably passed down) who has felt that they have worked very hard for their possessions and likely does not have the insurance to cover that. Oh yeah, like in the Joe Horn incident.

 

Given house prices are so comparatively low in America compared to the rest of the world, again, I'm incredibly sceptical that most Texans are unable to afford house insurance, and thus, depend on a weapon for security.

 

 

 

If the opposite is true, I'll hazard a guess those very same people who need guns like a life force because they can't afford alternative forms of security also oppose Obama for saying comments like "spread the wealth", because of some ridiculous stigma from the Republican Party claiming it's the first step to the Communist revolution in America.

 

 

 

Even while living below the breadline mark, my Dad was able to afford house insurance.

[Barihawk]

1) I was talking to magekllr, who is from Virginia. Not you. I don't even want to get into the British stereotype of Texans as I have been there. When I lived in England people sincerely asked me who was taking care of our horses while we were away. Also, your Tex-Mex sucks badly. English restaurants should not offer "authentic Tex-Mex" food when the salsa actually COOLS your mouth.

 

 

 

2) For my renters insurance covering $35000 dollars worth of property (the minimum available from any carrier), the yearly price is about $350 a year. That's on the low side. Many VERY LOW INCOME (AKA POVERTY) people may not be willing to trade other items for insurance. I know it's stupid, but it's true. It's very easy to sit in your relative wealth and compare others experiences to yourself, but realize that not everyone lives as comfortably as you. I know some people who come from low income families who blow 50-60 bucks a month on going to the movies but don't have health insurance offered as part of their work plan because it might reduce their paycheck.

 

 

 

As for the US having low housing rates, we also have lower minimum wages.

 

 

 

Also, while they may be able to afford, they don't always do it. That's their problem and not mine to judge. I'm just bringing up an example.

 

 

 

And a note, I've not met many people who are dreading Obama coming into office except this wierd gun trader guy at a flea market the other day. But he was probably a little odd in the head.

[magekillr]

I used NO stereotype. I said that Joe Horn got off for cold blooded murder because apparently he's allowed to use lethal force for possessions that are being stolen on another person's property. Another man got off for killing a group of teenagers in his trailer that were found to have twinkies in their pockets, and no weapons. How is using anecdotal evidence supporting the law in action, "stereotyping"?

[Barihawk]

I used NO stereotype. I said that Joe Horn got off for cold blooded murder because apparently he's allowed to use lethal force for possessions that are being stolen on another person's property. Another man got off for killing a group of teenagers in his trailer that were found to have twinkies in their pockets, and no weapons. How is using anecdotal evidence supporting the law in action, "stereotyping"?

 

 

 

Apologies. I misquoted. Someone else had made the stereotype and then you made a crack about being able to shoot someone just for taking your CD player. My mistake.

 

 

 

While I don't agree with the decisions, the twinkie deal was covered as there was an "implied threat" faced as interpreted by the judge. Do I agree with that? No. I will grab a gun if I hear someone smash in a window in the middle of the night. I will not fire if they drop and run. Hell, take the item as I am insured. I'd even hesitate if they drew a weapon on me. From there I guess it would have to be adrenaline.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter either way as I don't keep any ammunition in the house and the pistol in my bedstand, while imposing, has not been fired in 60 years.

 

 

 

I agree. But there are many more efficient ways of security. Such as alarm systems, calling 911, and then there's the ood ol' axe/baseball bat/knife or w/e.

 

 

 

What good is the axe/bat/knife, or whatever? You are still injuring/killing them. Which brings me to the freaking point. A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others.

 

And as I type (progressively) I am starting to wonder about this thread in general. Like many things in OT, we only observe the extremes on either side. Either gun-toting Billy Bobs or anal Commie Liberals. The fact is that the majority of gun owners in the US use them safely, do not keep them loaded, and only use them for recreational or sporting use. The preferred weapon for suspicious noises in the middle of the night is indeed a baseball bat or a golf club. Do not assume that every person who owns a weapon is going to necessarily grab it and start shooting when they see a burglar. Hell, the only reason I have that pistol in the nightstand is because it's a display piece and I don't know where to show it yet.

 

 

 

Again, I support things like adding a mandatory psychological profile to buy guns. But not to ban them entirely. It screws over the many people who use them safely and will be abused by not only criminals, but these so called Jim Horns who would likely hide their weapons. There's no way to ensure that nobody has a gun. You can't do it. Police can not search homes without a warrant, regardless.

 

 

 

The current system of selling guns is actually better since a ban would encourage a "black market" of acquiring arms, while the current method allows law enforcement agencies a chance to use sales information to track down specific customers in a majority of the cases. Even ammunition follows that positive trait.

[Ginger_Warrior]

1) I was talking to magekllr, who is from Virginia. Not you. I don't even want to get into the British stereotype of Texans as I have been there. When I lived in England people sincerely asked me who was taking care of our horses while we were away. Also, your Tex-Mex sucks badly. English restaurants should not offer "authentic Tex-Mex" food when the salsa actually COOLS your mouth.

 

You did say "That goes for all of you". It was fairly ambiguous. I'll agree, most people in Britain really don't know anything about Texas. In fact, most people in Britain don't know America that well, except the white middle-class high school celebrity utopia on the Disney Channel.

 

 

 

Britain and foreign food... lol. Thankfully my local Chinese is run by real Chinese students who cook real Chinese food. ;)

 

 

 

2) For my renters insurance covering $35000 dollars worth of property (the minimum available from any carrier), the yearly price is about $350 a year. That's on the low side. Many VERY LOW INCOME (AKA POVERTY) people may not be willing to trade other items for insurance. I know it's stupid, but it's true. It's very easy to sit in your relative wealth and compare others experiences to yourself, but realize that not everyone lives as comfortably as you.

 

You seem to be under the assumption my family isn't on a low income? I'm not gonna play the "I lived in poverty for a few years, gimme sympathy" card, but I wouldn't exactly claim I'm rich in comparison either.

 

 

 

I know some people who come from low income families who blow 50-60 bucks a month on going to the movies but don't have health insurance offered as part of their work plan because it might reduce their paycheck.

 

Perhaps the issue there is social security in America is inadequate, so people are having to pick and choose between what types of insurance they can get away with not paying? Types of insurance that would be deemed vital elsewhere.

 

 

 

As for the US having low housing rates, we also have lower minimum wages.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is America has much more land to build on, so there's more houses, and the size of each house is comparatively larger for its worth than, say, a council flat in Staines. Insuring those houses shouldn't be a problem, and if there is a problem, something's seriously wrong with the distribution of wealth.

[Barihawk]

I agree. But there are many more efficient ways of security. Such as alarm systems, calling 911, and then there's the ood ol' axe/baseball bat/knife or w/e.

 

 

 

What good is the axe/bat/knife, or whatever? You are still injuring/killing them. Which brings me to the freaking point. A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others.

 

And as I type (progressively) I am starting to wonder about this thread in general. Like many things in OT, we only observe the extremes on either side. Either gun-toting Billy Bobs or anal Commie Liberals. The fact is that the majority of gun owners in the US use them safely, do not keep them loaded, and only use them for recreational or sporting use. The preferred weapon for suspicious noises in the middle of the night is indeed a baseball bat or a golf club. Do not assume that every person who owns a weapon is going to necessarily grab it and start shooting when they see a burglar. Hell, the only reason I have that pistol in the nightstand is because it's a display piece and I don't know where to show it yet.

 

 

 

As I said previously in my post, sure, it may injure/kill them, but why make it so that it's GOING to kill them? Why make it so overly efficient that it is guaranteed to kill them? Why not just take ALL the guns away? Have cops use tasers except for high ranking officers, that way we wouldn't NEED defence.

 

 

 

How would you manage to take away all the guns? How would you keep guns away from seedier elements to society? How will you deal with the rise of an underground gun trade? How would you enforce these laws? How...You see my point?

 

 

 

Just because it works in England does not mean it will work here. Hell, people BRAG in England about owning guns and at least with our friends there would drag them out like they were status symbols. We don't really do it that much, here (well, some people and their gun racks...). Mine are personally in the furthest recesses of my home, unloaded, and in boxes where it would be difficult for someone to find them. Oh, with locks, as well.

 

 

 

Instead of enforcing laws that can never truly work, why not invest that time into educating people about firearms and the safe ways to handle/store them? It would for one be cheaper. Also, as stated before, maybe expand the license process for gun ownership to include rifles and shotguns. What about those who already have them? How about expanding the firearms license to include ammunition. That way everyone who even buys ammo would have to have taken a mandatory class (hell, not even that long of one) in safety and storage.

 

 

 

Refine the current system, don't put a poor replacement in it's place.

[ember3579]

I agree. But there are many more efficient ways of security. Such as alarm systems, calling 911, and then there's the ood ol' axe/baseball bat/knife or w/e.

 

 

 

What good is the axe/bat/knife, or whatever? You are still injuring/killing them. Which brings me to the freaking point. A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others.

 

And as I type (progressively) I am starting to wonder about this thread in general. Like many things in OT, we only observe the extremes on either side. Either gun-toting Billy Bobs or anal Commie Liberals. The fact is that the majority of gun owners in the US use them safely, do not keep them loaded, and only use them for recreational or sporting use. The preferred weapon for suspicious noises in the middle of the night is indeed a baseball bat or a golf club. Do not assume that every person who owns a weapon is going to necessarily grab it and start shooting when they see a burglar. Hell, the only reason I have that pistol in the nightstand is because it's a display piece and I don't know where to show it yet.

 

 

 

As I said previously in my post, sure, it may injure/kill them, but why make it so that it's GOING to kill them? Why make it so overly efficient that it is guaranteed to kill them? Why not just take ALL the guns away? Have cops use tasers except for high ranking officers, that way we wouldn't NEED defence.

 

 

 

 

 

As has been said before, how do you intend on disarming an entire NATION'S worth of criminals without suspending the requirement of a search warrant? Until you can answer that, and GUARANTEE that people will not be able to buy/make them without being caught post-haste, all you're doing is creating a unsafe environment for everybody, and turning a bunch of people who would otherwise be upstanding citizens into criminals. It'll be somewhat similar to the alcohol prohibition back around the tail end of the 1900s. Except that few people who had just a bottle of moonshine could kill a whole mess of people inside a few minutes.

[Kenshinjapan]

 

 

 

That being said, the law is interpreted by county judges. They might call things differently in far west Texas than they do in the rest of the state.

 

 

 

But yes, I totally agree with your repeated and radical use of stereotypes. I've called you out on this in the past. I'm not defending myself, I'm defending the rest of the people down here. Sure, there might be a few "hicks" but the vast majority of Texans (and southerners in general) are no different than you. That goes for all of you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm from west Texas and I can assure you that it isn't any different over here : .

 

 

 

When I traveled to London for a 2 week vacation a year ago, I ran into the same problems. People wondered if I rode everywhere on a horse and if I had a holster for a gun :wall: .

 

 

 

Texas!: Because NASA is run by idiots!!! #-o

 

 

 

As for the rest of the issue, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[venomai]

A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others.

 

... An increase in other weapons which are less lethal, thus resulting in an overall decline in homicide rates. Likewise, suicide rates can also be lessened by a reduction in firearm availability.

[Barihawk]

A gun is no more of a weapon than any of those. Convenient? Sure. But a reduction in gun crimes only leads to an increase in others.

 

... An increase in other weapons which are less lethal, thus resulting in an overall decline in homicide rates. Likewise, suicide rates can also be lessened by a reduction in firearm availability.

 

 

 

You do realize the vast majority of suicides occur from poisoning or overdose? Hell, gun related suicides are less common than slitting of wrists and HANGINGS. Most people seek the least violent way out. Guns may theoretically be quick (if done right) but the concept of having your head blown to hell is not a pretty one.

 

 

 

"Less lethal." Knives still kill a significant amount of people. They are also very easy to procure and incredibly hard to trace.

[Wisp]

Recently, near where I live, a police officer got into a gunfight, If the police officer had been equipped with only a taser, there is a good chance he would have been killed. Something like 20 shots were fired, and he was able to subdue the criminal. Criminals will get guns, if they want them. Black market guns aren't that uncommon. It's like drugs, just because they're illegal, doesn't mean people won't get them.

 

 

 

And a "good ol' ax/knife". If someone hits you with an axe, it probably is gonna do a lot more damage than a bullet to the leg, not matter where it hits.

[Zierro]

... An increase in other weapons which are less lethal, thus resulting in an overall decline in homicide rates. Likewise, suicide rates can also be lessened by a reduction in firearm availability.

 

 

 

The reason people use guns for that is because they are currently the most lethal thing they can get their hands on. What would happen if knives become the most lethal weapons instead? Guns aren't the only origin of the problem... people have been using different ways for killing each other for many many many years.

[venomai]

You do realize the vast majority of suicides occur from poisoning or overdose? Hell, gun related suicides are less common than slitting of wrists and HANGINGS.

 

Not sure where you get that idea.

 

 

 

As of 2004 in the United States, "firearms are still the most common method for suicide (51.6%)."

 

 

 

About 56.8% of male suicides and 32.4% of female suicides used firearms. Hangings account for far less -- 23.4% in males and 19.7% in females.

 

 

 

http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html

 

 

 

Most people seek the least violent way out.

 

Men in particular seem to prefer more "violent" and aggressive methods of suicide (e.g. stabbing, hanging, firearms). Firearms are seen as a pretty quick and painless way out.

 

 

 

Guns may theoretically be quick (if done right) but the concept of having your head blown to hell is not a pretty one.

 

Most won't consider the aesthetics of the scene of their death. Otherwise we wouldn't have people hanging themselves (which includes possible decapitation), jumping off buildings, slitting their wrists, etc.

 

 

 

Knives still kill a significant amount of people.

 

Of course they do. So do punches and kicks. The point is: it's a lot easier to shoot somebody than to fist fight them to death.

 

 

 

At close to medium range, gun are effective at ensuring somebody's death. Knives and baseball bats are not.

 

 

 

They are also very easy to procure and incredibly hard to trace.

 

Right... But, obviously, we would rather see a criminal use a baseball bat than a gun, even if it means it will be slightly more difficult to trace that criminal.

[venomai]

... An increase in other weapons which are less lethal, thus resulting in an overall decline in homicide rates. Likewise, suicide rates can also be lessened by a reduction in firearm availability.

 

 

 

The reason people use guns for that is because they are currently the most lethal thing they can get their hands on. What would happen if knives become the most lethal weapons instead? Guns aren't the only origin of the problem... people have been using different ways for killing each other for many many many years.

 

In some cases, the mere access to firearms creates a higher risk of impulsive suicide.[1] The point I was making, though, is that replacing firearms with a less effective method (such as poison, slitting wrists, etc) would cause an overall decline in suicide rates, even if there is little decline in attempted suicide (which, as pointed out above, may not be the case).

[michel555555]

Recently, near where I live, a police officer got into a gunfight, If the police officer had been equipped with only a taser, there is a good chance he would have been killed. Something like 20 shots were fired, and he was able to subdue the criminal. Criminals will get guns, if they want them. Black market guns aren't that uncommon. It's like drugs, just because they're illegal, doesn't mean people won't get them.

 

 

 

And a "good ol' ax/knife". If someone hits you with an axe, it probably is gonna do a lot more damage than a bullet to the leg, not matter where it hits.

 

 

 

you actually have a better chance of surviving if your arm or leg is cut off then if a bullet nicks or severs an artery.

 

 

 

OT: i wouldn't ban guns in America because there are just to many gun activists and just because of the current culture of the nation.

 

 

 

first off any gun that is not used for hunting should be banned there just really is no point. if you are mugged do you really think you'll have time to get your gun out of your holster and turn the saftey off even if hes just armed with a knife? chances are you'll be knocked in the head from behind instead of someone just walking toward you and asking for your wallet.

 

 

 

for personal protection they invented this nice new invention called a taser. basically the same concept as a gun except instead of fireing a bullet it fires these harmless barbs which, get this, besides from the ocasional heart attack are safter then a gun and won't kill the guy so no morality issues.

 

 

 

and as for home protection a good ol hunting rifle will work just as well as a handgun.

[venomai]

Criminals will get guns, if they want them. Black market guns aren't that uncommon. It's like drugs, just because they're illegal, doesn't mean people won't get them.

 

The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

[Zierro]

In some cases, the mere access to firearms creates a higher risk of impulsive suicide.[1] The point I was making, though, is that replacing firearms with a less effective method (such as poison, slitting wrists, etc) would cause an overall decline in suicide rates, even if there is little decline in attempted suicide (which, as pointed out above, may not be the case).

 

 

 

I was talking about homicide as opposed to suicide though.

 

 

 

Of course they do. So do punches and kicks. The point is: it's a lot easier to shoot somebody than to fist fight them to death.

 

 

 

At close to medium range, gun are effective at ensuring somebody's death. Knives and baseball bats are not.

 

 

 

That's not always a bad thing especially from a pro gunner's point of view. The main argument for pro gun is for self defense. What better method of self defense than an ensuring death upon some crazy person who is attempting to take innocent lives?

[1_man_army]

 

That's not always a bad thing especially from a pro gunner's point of view. The main argument for pro gun is for self defense. What better method of self defense than an ensuring death upon some crazy person who is attempting to take innocent lives?

 

 

 

Or, how much easier do guns make it for psycho's to go on the rampage and take the innocent lives in the first place.

[baalboy5]

Make bullets cost more then a gun. Nothing wrong with that. Not like being able to kill should be cheap.

 

We don't need gun control! We need bullet control!, I say each bullet should cost 5 thousand dollars, then they'll be no more innocent bystanders. Hell If you got shot they would take their bullet back!'

 

 

 

 

 

Also all that self-defense bs.

 

Can someone tell me a estimate of how many 'self-defense' measurements have been used with guns in the past years?

 

If I recall, the only reason we were aloud to have guns was because of the fight for indepence.

[1_man_army]

Make bullets cost more then a gun. Nothing wrong with that. Not like being able to kill should be cheap.

 

We don't need gun control! We need bullet control!, I say each bullet should cost 5 thousand dollars, then they'll be no more innocent bystanders. Hell If you got shot they would take their bullet back!'

 

 

 

 

 

Also all that self-defense bs.

 

Can someone tell me a estimate of how many 'self-defense' measurements have been used with guns in the past years?

 

If I recall, the only reason we were aloud to have guns was because of the fight for indepence.

 

 

 

I've been resisting the urge to post that Chris Rock quote up,

Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his a**!' And people would think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your f*ing head off, if I could afford it.