100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Violent Crime Increased When Countries Banned Guns | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable' it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,, I agree. I would only shoot someone if I was in fear of my life or my family's lives. For burglary, I'd sick my dog on them. I think it depends on what the burglar is trying to steal. If a man broke into your house and you got the drop on him with your gun, and you saw he was only stealing some food & maybe some blankets, would you shoot him, tell him to drop the stuff and leave, or give him the stuff you could spare & help him carry it out?...Myself, I'd be inclined to help him "steal" it and maybe slip him a few bucks to boot. We all like to think about hypothetical questions but In court I always answer them honestly. The most honest way I can answer any hypothetical question about what I would do in any hypothetical situation is this: "It would depend on my state of mind at the time." Bottom line is, we don't know what we might do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable' it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,, I agree. I would only shoot someone if I was in fear of my life or my family's lives. For burglary, I'd sick my dog on them. I think it depends on what the burglar is trying to steal. If a man broke into your house and you got the drop on him with your gun, and you saw he was only stealing some food & maybe some blankets, would you shoot him, tell him to drop the stuff and leave, or give him the stuff you could spare & help him carry it out?...Myself, I'd be inclined to help him "steal" it and maybe slip him a few bucks to boot. We all like to think about hypothetical questions but In court I always answer them honestly. The most honest way I can answer any hypothetical question about what I would do in any hypothetical situation is this: "It would depend on my state of mind at the time." Bottom line is, we don't know what we might do. Nobody knows precisely what they would do in a situation until it occurs, which is why I said I'd be inclined to help the guy out. I like to think I have enough sense to know that shooting someone engaged in a criminal act by necessity, who is not a direct threat to MY right to life & limb would turn ME into a criminal. Besides, as I consider myself my brother's keeper, I have an obligation of care (a duty) to my fellow man (or woman) to help him/her wherever possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Kleisto
on
Sat 12/22/12 05:27 PM
|
|
I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable' it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,, so what's the better option? do nothing, or rely on police to handle it when they may well fail you? life isn't always simple msharmony I am sorry to tell you, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend yourself and your property. and also......as far as the death thing goes.....firstly it's not always about killing the person, it's more them KNOWING you could or could wound them that is the thing. Obviously you don't want to have to, but if you have that ability you are much more likely to deter them from coming after you than if you do not. And regardless I will say it again, if you do the crime, you get no sympathy from me. Your right to be protected ends where you cross someone elses rights. At that point you deserve what you get. Also about crossfire, you can make the same argument for cops here, but they still are allowed to carry a gun aren't they? If they can use a gun to defend themselves or someone else why can't we? Again life is just not simple.....the bystander thing sucks but it can happen, it's not a good enough reason to take away everyone's right to self defense based on potential alone. I never would propose that life is simple what is more likely is a long list more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else to get a hold of it(as in Adam Lanza) and harm others more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else (a child) to get ahold of it and harm themself its not as simple as deterring,, human life is sacred to me,, if thats liberal or unpatriotic, so be it all crime is not deserving of a death penalty, as our own laws indicate but we probably can deter lesser crimes by making people fear there are weapons that may kill them but Id rather risk those lesser crimes where people SURVIVE to avoid people dying unnecessarily,,, Then you only have yourself to blame if someone comes after you, because you allowed yourself to be put into the position to make it happen. I'm sorry but I just think it's insanity to do that, and what if the criminal in question wants to kill you? what about that? It's not just "lesser" crimes that can be deterred by the presence of a weapon.......is a criminal's life more sacred than those lives affected by those bigger ones? And I'll say it again, you can't legislate based on assumptions or what ifs. There's what ifs and risks involved with everything, doesn't mean the answer is to ban. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable' it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,, so what's the better option? do nothing, or rely on police to handle it when they may well fail you? life isn't always simple msharmony I am sorry to tell you, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend yourself and your property. and also......as far as the death thing goes.....firstly it's not always about killing the person, it's more them KNOWING you could or could wound them that is the thing. Obviously you don't want to have to, but if you have that ability you are much more likely to deter them from coming after you than if you do not. And regardless I will say it again, if you do the crime, you get no sympathy from me. Your right to be protected ends where you cross someone elses rights. At that point you deserve what you get. Also about crossfire, you can make the same argument for cops here, but they still are allowed to carry a gun aren't they? If they can use a gun to defend themselves or someone else why can't we? Again life is just not simple.....the bystander thing sucks but it can happen, it's not a good enough reason to take away everyone's right to self defense based on potential alone. I never would propose that life is simple what is more likely is a long list more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else to get a hold of it(as in Adam Lanza) and harm others more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else (a child) to get ahold of it and harm themself its not as simple as deterring,, human life is sacred to me,, if thats liberal or unpatriotic, so be it all crime is not deserving of a death penalty, as our own laws indicate but we probably can deter lesser crimes by making people fear there are weapons that may kill them but Id rather risk those lesser crimes where people SURVIVE to avoid people dying unnecessarily,,, Then you only have yourself to blame if someone comes after you, because you allowed yourself to be put into the position to make it happen. I'm sorry but I just think it's insanity to do that, and what if the criminal in question wants to kill you? what about that? It's not just "lesser" crimes that can be deterred by the presence of a weapon.......is a criminal's life more sacred than those lives affected by those bigger ones? And I'll say it again, you can't legislate based on assumptions or what ifs. There's what ifs and risks involved with everything, doesn't mean the answer is to ban. no, that is the fundamental difference in perception here it is not about only having 'myself' to blame responsibility for individual actions, although directly attributed to the person who makes the choice, also are a result of the situations that combined to bring that person to their choice I Believe we are connected in such a way as to have responsibility for each other and not just 'ourself' and I believe we attract what we put out I am not putting out that life is less precious if it has committed crime,,I am not putting out an expectation of violence, and so I dont expect to be a victim and even if I had a gun, that would be no guarantee that violence wouldnt still be vicited upon me but it is also more likely that someone else may be a victim of the gun I own,,, you see, there are many ways to look at it if someone feels its so inevitable that violent crime will visit them that its foolish to be without a tool of death,, than thats their perogative too I dont feel its inevitable, it is more likely than it should be, but it is still far from inevitable enough for me to keep a gun |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 12/22/12 06:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is a human life worth in dollars, last I heard $25,000. Look that up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVg Real facts. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/37694.aspx Sources. Nice Links Bushi! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is a human life worth in dollars, last I heard $25,000. Look that up! its priceless to me,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 12/22/12 08:15 PM
|
|
Msharmony said: no, that is the fundamental difference in perception here it is not about only having 'myself' to blame responsibility for individual actions, although directly attributed to the person who makes the choice, also are a result of the situations that combined to bring that person to their choice I Believe we are connected in such a way as to have responsibility for each other and not just 'ourself' and I believe we attract what we put out I totally agree with you because you are talking about the law of attraction. The problem is this: few people are aware of what kinds of vibrations they are "putting out" because they are bombarded with fear mongering terrorism coming at them constantly from the television and these emotional and negative messages and images lodge inside of the subconscious. Even an innocent child or a dog can pick up fear vibrations coming from a family member and these fear vibrations will attract like vibrations. They don't have to be consciously 'thinking' about being attacked or encountering some violence. I am not putting out that life is less precious if it has committed crime,,I am not putting out an expectation of violence, and so I dont expect to be a victim. See the above. One does not "expect to be a victim" but people are not aware of the vibrations they are putting forth. You are obviously thinking that guns and violence are a problem and that gun control is the solution, so yes, you are placing your attention on these fear vibrations. and even if I had a gun, that would be no guarantee that violence wouldnt still be vicited upon me but it is also more likely that someone else may be a victim of the gun I own,,, you see, there are many ways to look at it if someone feels its so inevitable that violent crime will visit them that its foolish to be without a tool of death,, than thats their perogative too I dont feel its inevitable, it is more likely than it should be, but it is still far from inevitable enough for me to keep a gun Your points are basically all personal points and you are free to have your opinions and you are free to personally chose not to own or carry a gun. You sound like you feel like someone is trying to convince you that you should carry a gun. That is not what this is about. You are free to make your own choices. What this discussion is about is a push towards gun control, and even gun banning based on the hysteria and emotional reactions to a school shooting, and politicians are using this hysteria for that agenda. They wallow in emotional hysteria and absurd diatribe and even sink to angry name calling on national television networks. Watch the video Bushidobillyclub posted for some rational facts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony said: no, that is the fundamental difference in perception here it is not about only having 'myself' to blame responsibility for individual actions, although directly attributed to the person who makes the choice, also are a result of the situations that combined to bring that person to their choice I Believe we are connected in such a way as to have responsibility for each other and not just 'ourself' and I believe we attract what we put out I totally agree with you because you are talking about the law of attraction. The problem is this: few people are aware of what kinds of vibrations they are "putting out" because they are bombarded with fear mongering terrorism coming at them constantly from the television and these negative messages lodge inside of the subconscious. Even an innocent child or a dog can pick up fear vibrations coming from a family member and these fear vibrations will attract like vibrations. They don't have to be consciously 'thinking' about being attacked or encountering some violence. I am not putting out that life is less precious if it has committed crime,,I am not putting out an expectation of violence, and so I dont expect to be a victim. See the above. One does not "expect to be a victim" but people are not aware of the vibrations they are putting forth. You are obviously thinking that guns and violence are a problem and that gun control is the solution, so yes, you are placing your attention on these fear vibrations. and even if I had a gun, that would be no guarantee that violence wouldnt still be vicited upon me but it is also more likely that someone else may be a victim of the gun I own,,, you see, there are many ways to look at it if someone feels its so inevitable that violent crime will visit them that its foolish to be without a tool of death,, than thats their perogative too I dont feel its inevitable, it is more likely than it should be, but it is still far from inevitable enough for me to keep a gun Your points are basically all personal points and you are free to have your opinions and you are free to personally chose not to own or carry a gun. You sound like you feel like someone is trying to convince you that you should carry a gun. That is not what this is about. You are free to make your own choices. What this discussion is about is a push towards gun control, and even gun banning based on the hysteria and emotional reactions to a school shooting, and politicians are using this hysteria for that agenda. They wallow in emotional hysteria and absurd diatribe and even sink to angry name calling on national television networks. Watch the video Bushidobillyclub posted for some rational facts. I watched the video, Im not sure what those 'facts' are supposed to prove though, being they are only sometimes true and not a rule those facts do nothing to refute my belief that it starts with the culture, and from there certain combinations are more deadly than others,,, but in any case, as stated dozens of times now,, Im not for taking away guns Im just also not for allowing citizens easy access to bombs, or tanks, or guns that shoot numerous rounds with little effort, time, or thought or chance for shelter or response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 12/22/12 08:23 PM
|
|
Well once again you are being vague and ambiguous. Any new legislation towards gun control (new laws) is just another step toward the desired over all agenda to ban all guns eventually ... just like they did in Britain.
In America, they have a longer way to go, because unlike the Brits, our ancestors fought and died for our freedom and they will not be so quick to hand over their guns to the powers that be because guess who they are? .... The central banksters of London. You don't want to give them an INCH because they will take miles. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Britain didnt outlaw guns, they only have stricter regulations for licensing
not a bad idea at all According to the most recent figures for England and Wales, there are 138,728 people certificated to hold firearms and they own 435,383 weapons. There are 574,946 shotgun certificates which cover 1.4 million shotguns. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974 and I personally emulate the progress made in Britain regarding crimes where people are KILLED,,,,by guns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you commit a crime or try to commit one, your right to be protected ends right there.....if you get shot and die, that's your own fault, should have thought about that consequence before you decided to do whatever you were trying to do. It is sad it happens that way at times? Yes, but the person brought it on themselves when they tried to commit the crime in the first place. Don't wanna die, then don't do the crime simple as that. Is it crude? Maybe so, but why should we be at all sympathetic to someone who chose to rob or steal? They made the mistake, so they need to deal with it. In Britain you can get put in jail for shooting a home invader and the home invader can sue you for injuries. Its ridiculous. Personally, I like the "make my day" law in Colorado. Yep; we have the same laws as Britian in that your attacker or the family of the attacker can sue you if you kill him while he is breaking in your home. However; that doesn't seem to be slowing people down from defending themselves here. LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep; we have the same laws as Britian in that your attacker or the family of the attacker can sue you if you kill him while he is breaking in your home. However; that doesn't seem to be slowing people down from defending themselves here. LOL Yes...Surprisingly, Canadians seem to have a small section of their brains that isn't reserved entirely for hockey and beer...Now that we know its there, it'll just be a matter of finding it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony said: no, that is the fundamental difference in perception here it is not about only having 'myself' to blame responsibility for individual actions, although directly attributed to the person who makes the choice, also are a result of the situations that combined to bring that person to their choice I Believe we are connected in such a way as to have responsibility for each other and not just 'ourself' and I believe we attract what we put out I totally agree with you because you are talking about the law of attraction. The problem is this: few people are aware of what kinds of vibrations they are "putting out" because they are bombarded with fear mongering terrorism coming at them constantly from the television and these negative messages lodge inside of the subconscious. Even an innocent child or a dog can pick up fear vibrations coming from a family member and these fear vibrations will attract like vibrations. They don't have to be consciously 'thinking' about being attacked or encountering some violence. I am not putting out that life is less precious if it has committed crime,,I am not putting out an expectation of violence, and so I dont expect to be a victim. See the above. One does not "expect to be a victim" but people are not aware of the vibrations they are putting forth. You are obviously thinking that guns and violence are a problem and that gun control is the solution, so yes, you are placing your attention on these fear vibrations. and even if I had a gun, that would be no guarantee that violence wouldnt still be vicited upon me but it is also more likely that someone else may be a victim of the gun I own,,, you see, there are many ways to look at it if someone feels its so inevitable that violent crime will visit them that its foolish to be without a tool of death,, than thats their perogative too I dont feel its inevitable, it is more likely than it should be, but it is still far from inevitable enough for me to keep a gun Your points are basically all personal points and you are free to have your opinions and you are free to personally chose not to own or carry a gun. You sound like you feel like someone is trying to convince you that you should carry a gun. That is not what this is about. You are free to make your own choices. What this discussion is about is a push towards gun control, and even gun banning based on the hysteria and emotional reactions to a school shooting, and politicians are using this hysteria for that agenda. They wallow in emotional hysteria and absurd diatribe and even sink to angry name calling on national television networks. Watch the video Bushidobillyclub posted for some rational facts. I watched the video, Im not sure what those 'facts' are supposed to prove though, being they are only sometimes true and not a rule those facts do nothing to refute my belief that it starts with the culture, and from there certain combinations are more deadly than others,,, but in any case, as stated dozens of times now,, Im not for taking away guns Im just also not for allowing citizens easy access to bombs, or tanks, or guns that shoot numerous rounds with little effort, time, or thought or chance for shelter or response |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you commit a crime or try to commit one, your right to be protected ends right there.....if you get shot and die, that's your own fault, should have thought about that consequence before you decided to do whatever you were trying to do. It is sad it happens that way at times? Yes, but the person brought it on themselves when they tried to commit the crime in the first place. Don't wanna die, then don't do the crime simple as that. Is it crude? Maybe so, but why should we be at all sympathetic to someone who chose to rob or steal? They made the mistake, so they need to deal with it. In Britain you can get put in jail for shooting a home invader and the home invader can sue you for injuries. Its ridiculous. Personally, I like the "make my day" law in Colorado. Yep; we have the same laws as Britian in that your attacker or the family of the attacker can sue you if you kill him while he is breaking in your home. However; that doesn't seem to be slowing people down from defending themselves here. LOL Plus Canada and Alaska State both have HUGE man eating bears. Mace does not stop them. Plus they will barge into your house. So how do you stop one? BEAR REPELLANT? You are former Military, I know how you would deal with it... Maximum Firepower! Even with my HOTTEST slug loads in my .12 gauge I would be LOATH to have to defend myself with it from some of those bears! I would have to wait until it is uncomfortably close and likewise I would feel the gun at hand would be a little too light to stop that bear! Even a 30.06 would feel a little small. Some Kodiak bears have reached over 1200 lbs. That is about 600kilos. You cannot discount guns at all as useful tools. And yet people try to. I think far too many people not only fear guns but that fear becomes ignorance. I have seen women who were scared to be around guns go to a shooting range and suddenly they own at least one if not two. The UK goes by a different understanding in that "the government" is responsible, and that we all have to go by what they say. In America we have a built in fail safe to prevent a government acting as it sees fit. It isn't fool proof but at least we have it. Notice how a country with an armed population stands between YOUR nation and Mexico? Now imagine if Mexico had an open boarder with Canada. What problems would you inherit? You would have every latter day Pancho Villa doing raids with guns across your boarders. You might want to look up American history in the west around the period of 1900 to 1920. Mexican crime raids were COMMON back then. We just seem to conveniently as Americans forget that little bit of history with them. So about our citizens having guns... Like anything there is always a downside... but the upside outweighs the downside. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even if every citizen were armed in canada,, with only 30 million people there , they wouldnt have much chance against Mexico , who has nearly four times as many in its population
but, I guess thats why Canada keeps its nose to itself and doesnt bother or interfere with anyone,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even if every citizen were armed in canada,, with only 30 million people there , they wouldnt have much chance against Mexico , who has nearly four times as many in its population That's why citizens need sophisticated, military grade weaponry to preserve the security of their nation. but, I guess thats why Canada keeps its nose to itself and doesnt bother or interfere with anyone,,, It used to do that because it had a spirit of live & let live and didn't interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations...Unfortunately, it took a page out of the USA's book and now interferes on a regular basis. As a result, Canada has lost its reputation as a fair-dealing peacemaker and is now seen globally as just another part of the hegemonic, imperialist, corporate conglomerate of countries called "The West." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even if every citizen were armed in canada,, with only 30 million people there , they wouldnt have much chance against Mexico , who has nearly four times as many in its population but, I guess thats why Canada keeps its nose to itself and doesnt bother or interfere with anyone,,, There is less crime is Canada because there is a lot less people. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
even if every citizen were armed in canada,, with only 30 million people there , they wouldnt have much chance against Mexico , who has nearly four times as many in its population That's why citizens need sophisticated, military grade weaponry to preserve the security of their nation. but, I guess thats why Canada keeps its nose to itself and doesnt bother or interfere with anyone,,, It used to do that because it had a spirit of live & let live and didn't interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations...Unfortunately, it took a page out of the USA's book and now interferes on a regular basis. As a result, Canada has lost its reputation as a fair-dealing peacemaker and is now seen globally as just another part of the hegemonic, imperialist, corporate conglomerate of countries called "The West." Yep soon it will all be connected to South America too. |
|
|
|
|
