<!--quoteo(post=1717331:date=Jul 14 2009, 05:41 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 14 2009, 05:41 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717331"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, surely this has doomed the german people. Let their grisly fate stand as a reminder for what happens if you ban Counter-Strike from public LAN parties.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First they came for the killergamers ...
When they came for me, I didn't know how to fight.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717396:date=Jul 15 2009, 07:12 AM:name=Tykjen)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tykjen @ Jul 15 2009, 07:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717396"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"In every corner of the USA, at every gun show and at every gun club meeting we are hearing the same question. Where is all the ammunition?"
"And as gun owners have continued to buy up guns and ammo before Obama takes office, they have created a self fulfilled prophesy of an ammunition shortage."
"Concern that the Obama administration could impose a new ban on some semiautomatic weapons is driving worried gun owners to stockpile ammunition and cartridge reloading components at such a rate that manufacturers can't meet demand."
Looks like Democrats taking office is the best thing for gun and ammo manufacturers in a long time.
<!--quoteo(post=1717400:date=Jul 15 2009, 01:12 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jul 15 2009, 01:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717400"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, "safe firearms users" make their own ammunition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> erm, I dont get this one. Ofcourse you can push the projectiles into the cartridges yourself, but why would every "safe firearms user" do this himself instead of buying his ammo at the gun store? It's not like mass manufactured ammo would be likely to fail more often than "homemade" ammo (you still have to buy the blast caps, projectiles, cartridges and the powder...).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Concern that the Obama administration could impose a new ban on some semiautomatic weapons is driving worried gun owners to stockpile ammunition and cartridge reloading components at such a rate that manufacturers can't meet demand."
Looks like Democrats taking office is the best thing for gun and ammo manufacturers in a long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't get me started on Obama. That's a whole new layer of burnt toast on my flaming agenda.
The biggest argument that firearms are NOT the reason the US has such a high murder rate is the following -- only about half the murders in the US involve a firearm and even if you ignore all the firearm murders the US still has a rediculously high murder rate. So why does the US have such a high non-firearm murder rate if firearms are the problem? Seems it's more of a social and/or justice problem than the tool.
I believe the reason there is a higher gun crime rate than some other countries is due to the fact that our "justice" system is completely worthless. In my state some dude armed a store at gun point. He plea bargained his gun charges away (he wasn't legally allowed to possess the gun in the first place). He got out of jail in 6 months, murdered a cop with yet another gun. This stuff happens over and over. People who aren't allowed to own guns use guns and then the gun charges are dropped. We have plenty of laws that will keep repeat offenders out of jail, but we keep throwing the charges away. USE THE LAWS.
Even in non-firearm related crimes, violent criminals are given slaps on the wrist.
<!--quoteo(post=1717414:date=Jul 15 2009, 09:53 AM:name=PhiXX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PhiXX @ Jul 15 2009, 09:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->erm, I dont get this one. Ofcourse you can push the projectiles into the cartridges yourself, but why would every "safe firearms user" do this himself instead of buying his ammo at the gun store? It's not like mass manufactured ammo would be likely to fail more often than "homemade" ammo (you still have to buy the blast caps, projectiles, cartridges and the powder...).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can customize ammo for an individual firearm and get the most accuracy possible out of your firearm, more so than you can with bought ammo and you can do it at about the cost of the cheapest mass produced ammo. That being said, there's not just an ammo shortage, there's also a shortage of primers ("blast caps") and powders.
I don't agree that to be safe you "roll your own", but those that are more into shooting often due for cost and/or accuracy reasons.
1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).
2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.
3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.
4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.
5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.
Though make no mistake, these laws are nothing more than a "stupidity" filter. I don't think it would eliminate problems completely, but I also don't think attempting to remove guns entirely would be any better.
1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).
2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.
3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.
4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.
5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.
Though make no mistake, these laws are nothing more than a "stupidity" filter. I don't think it would eliminate problems completely, but I also don't think attempting to remove guns entirely would be any better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't agree to ordinary civillians having guns no matter what "filter" you apply. Shootings will still happen if a person wants it too. The way I see it, people who own guns are either hunters or persons enjoying firing at the shooting range - why can't the guns be locked in safely at the shooting range? Why do you have to take it home with you? As for people arguing for how a gun is a home security tool, I will only take you as serious as to ask if ordinary people should have the right to sentence an intruder to death for breaking and entering?
I'm tired and this post contains poorly structured sentences and grammar.
<!--quoteo(post=1717436:date=Jul 15 2009, 05:38 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 05:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]if ordinary people should have the right to sentence an intruder to death for breaking and entering?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's called a "castle doctrine," and yes, that right exists in certain states.
<!--quoteo(post=1717400:date=Jul 15 2009, 01:12 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jul 15 2009, 01:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717400"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, "safe firearms users" make their own ammunition.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that supposed to be a dig at me? Because I stopped trying to rationalise with you after you continued to argue with me about an argument I never made. ~better things to do~
Or this thing: <a href="http://thefunctionkey.com/2009/01/28/self-defense-nightstand/" target="_blank">http://thefunctionkey.com/2009/01/28/self-...nse-nightstand/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1717445:date=Jul 15 2009, 01:21 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jul 15 2009, 01:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717445"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is that supposed to be a dig at me? Because I stopped trying to rationalise with you after you continued to argue with me about an argument I never made. ~better things to do~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=above)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (above)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was joking, guys. ^_^<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just trying to break the tension a little bit. Jeeze, don't take me so seriously.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1717454:date=Jul 15 2009, 02:14 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jul 15 2009, 02:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717454"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was just trying to break the tension a little bit. Jeeze, don't take me so seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey, internet discussion is serios[sic] business.
<b>Hawkeye</b>, your regulations seem pretty good for handgun/hunting rifle/shotgun style weapons. I don't see the need for anyone to own an assault weapon. I disagree on one point though: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think it should be made public. That sounds like letting criminals know the "soft" houses to hit.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1717444:date=Jul 15 2009, 06:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 15 2009, 06:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's called a "castle doctrine," and yes, that right exists in certain states.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
iirc, some in some states it's actually legal to shoot someone as they're actually running away from you (if they've broken into your house). I may be wrong, though. I remember it coming from that thread about that old guy who shot two robbers dead when the 911 operator told him to not even go outside.
<!--quoteo(post=1717436:date=Jul 15 2009, 11:38 AM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 11:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717436"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I won't agree to ordinary civillians having guns no matter what "filter" you apply. Shootings will still happen if a person wants it too. The way I see it, people who own guns are either hunters or persons enjoying firing at the shooting range - why can't the guns be locked in safely at the shooting range? Why do you have to take it home with you? As for people arguing for how a gun is a home security tool, I will only take you as serious as to ask if ordinary people should have the right to sentence an intruder to death for breaking and entering?
I'm tired and this post contains poorly structured sentences and grammar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me to properly respond to this post would require several pages which you'd most certainly never bother reading, but I'll try to keep it short:
While there are plenty of crimes committed with guns, there are plenty committed without. And many violent crimes will STILL be committed regardless of access to guns. UK is a perfect example, most violent country in europe despite banning handguns. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html</a>
In many states it is LEGAL TO KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) if you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily injury. Gun or no gun, citizens already have this right in most places. If you CHOOSE to be helpless then that is your choice, but don't go forcing your stupidity on others.
There are also many situations in which one needs to defend themselves outside of their home. University studies show that guns are used to PREVENT crime 1.5 - 2.5 million times each year, so you are essentially saying you would like to increase crime rates. Just because you don't hear about this stuff in the media (because it doesn't scare people) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Similarly just because it doesn't fit with what you believe doesn't make it any less true.
<!--quoteo(post=1717444:date=Jul 15 2009, 01:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 15 2009, 01:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's called a "castle doctrine," and yes, that right exists in certain states.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Castle doctrine is simply a name for a type of law that prevents the CRIMINAL (home intruder) or criminal's family from then SUEING the VICTIM (home owner) after the victim (home owner) protected themselves and those sorts of lawsuits are absolute bull######. Now you can argue that the "criminal" (intruder) isn't a criminal until the courts decide he is, and I agree with you, but castle doctrine only protects the "victim" (home owner) in this case from civil suits IF he is found innocent in criminal court for causing serious bodily injury or death to the criminal (intruder). So castle doctrine isn't what a lot of anti-gun people call a "license to kill". It is simply given an exemption in civil court if the courts rule that the person protected themselves and their family in a manner consistent with law. This is not restricted to guns.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people should have to go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics before you're allowed to exercise your first amendment rights. We don't need any more hate filled or politically incorrect speech coming from people. It just causes hatred and more violence. While we're at it, we should make it difficult to exercise any rights. Nevermind, the US is (still) a free country.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are already tons of crimes, even things like DUI, that will have your right to own firearms suspended PERMANENTLY. The problem with such a list is enforcement. Are you going to go around checking people don't have guns? Where's the privacy? Criminals don't buy guns legally anyway, they're not allowed to posess them. So why would they get the license before buying? Simply put, they wouldn't since they don't get their guns from gun dealers anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Accidents are different than negligence and stupidity. Most gun related "accidents" are actually negligence and/or stupidity. Fun fact, more kids are killed each year by drowning in swimming pools than by firearms. Let's ban those too.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All gun manufacturers are required by federal law to have a unique serial number stamped onto the frame of every firearm. The serial numbers and to who they are sold (dealers) are required to be tracked. Dealers in turn are required to keep a bound book of EVERY firearm transaction that goes through their store. The BATF regularly checks up on this stuff and screws with firearm dealers over the pettiest things.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already law, except for the list #2 thing. Federal law requires ID and a background check be done for every sale and if the person fails the background check the gun is not allowed to be sold. This is a serious offense for a dealer, they will be shut down.
I'd also like to point out that NY state has taken the gun registration a step further and requires a "ballistics fingerprint" to be kept on file for every gun sold in the state. This, in theory, will allow evidence at the scene to be matched to the ballistics fingerprint database and know exactly what firearm was used in the crime and who owns it. It costs $1.5M/year to run the system (since March 2001) and has yet to be useful. Maryland has had a similar system for slightly longer than NY.
"In 2004, a report by the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division concluded that the ballistic imaging system “had not proven to be a time saving tool for the firearms examiner or an investigative enhancement to the criminal investigator,†and that “it has simply failed in the mission and vision concepts originally established for the program.â€"
I'd also like to point out that the states with the most gun crimes and most violence overall are also the states that make it the most difficult for citizens to defend themselves, or out right preventing them entirely. If that's not an example of failed gun control, I guess gun control advocates will never follow logic and actual numbers/facts.
EDIT: fixed a couple typos, I know there's lots more.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For me to properly respond to this post would require several pages which you'd most certainly never bother reading, but I'll try to keep it short:
While there are plenty of crimes committed with guns, there are plenty committed without. And many violent crimes will STILL be committed regardless of access to guns. UK is a perfect example, most violent country in europe despite banning handguns. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you yourself didn't bother to read most of the thread, where no one argued that guns are the cause of violent crime, or that banning guns will end violent crime. Also, the fact that you're quoting the Daily Mail literally made me laugh out loud and spray my monitor with water.
<!--quoteo(post=1717464:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:17 PM:name=Some Dude)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Some Dude @ Jul 15 2009, 08:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also, the fact that you're quoting the Daily Mail literally made me laugh out loud and spray my monitor with water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also laughed so hard that I spat my drink out, but luckily my hands got in the way in time and only my clothes got covered instead.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While there are plenty of crimes committed with guns, there are plenty committed without. And many violent crimes will STILL be committed regardless of access to guns. UK is a perfect example, most violent country in europe despite banning handguns. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wasn't saying that taking guns away from the families would prevent all crime. What you did was taking what I said and spin it to a ridicules, ignorant postulate so that nothing I said should be taken seriously.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In many states it is LEGAL TO KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) if you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily injury. Gun or no gun, citizens already have this right in most places. If you CHOOSE to be helpless then that is your choice, but don't go forcing your stupidity on others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can imagine that being asssaulted in your own home is traumatic, but giving people the right to LEGALLY KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) should never be written in any law, it simply goes against what most modern civilisations are trying to achieve. I would ofcourse, if I was assaulted in my own home, defend myself regardles of the law - but I would never take a gun to an intruder - clubbing him with something heavy and blunt would be the most for me. I have no fear of burglars though, I guess if you are constantly being robbed, you will get a lot more edgy.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are also many situations in which one needs to defend themselves outside of their home. University studies show that guns are used to PREVENT crime 1.5 - 2.5 million times each year, so you are essentially saying you would like to increase crime rates. Just because you don't hear about this stuff in the media (because it doesn't scare people) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Similarly just because it doesn't fit with what you believe doesn't make it any less true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This paragraph is interesting in it's accusational style. I won't question your sources because I genuinely believe such study exists, I can't help but question the factual circumstances of the study. What crimes were prevented? HOW is the crime prevented with the gun? (i.e. is "The officer unbuttoned his gun holster and the burglar was intimidated and put the chairleg he was wielding down, "preventing it with a gun"?) Questions like that. Don't you think that the majority of the prevented crimes (prevented with gun usage) are prevented by police officers? I seriously doubt that I or anyone I know would ever say something similar to "Good thing I had a gun, I prevented this crime" (had we had guns). I AM NOT SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE CRIME RATES. I'm putting that in capital letters because I think your comment is stupid and that it is taking the empty void that would slot a better argument, had you had one.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->first amendment KILLS PEOPLE.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Following your example I took the liberty of fixing that for you. THAT IS WHAT YOU MENT.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Accidents are different than negligence and stupidity. Most gun related "accidents" are actually negligence and/or stupidity. Fun fact, more kids are killed each year by drowning in swimming pools than by firearms. Let's ban those too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because something is worse doesn't make shot kids a small issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd also like to point out that the states with the most gun crimes and most violence overall are also the states that make it the most difficult for citizens to defend themselves, or out right preventing them entirely. If that's not an example of failed gun control, I guess gun control advocates will never follow logic and actual numbers/facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, we have the most guncrime of the states in USA? Let's get more guns! Pro logic there, Bubbah.
Edited in a buttomline: Your point is (IT IS IT IS IT IS!!!!) that to be safe from crazy gunmen, you have to own a gun. How can I live here in DK, safe, without a gun? What makes your country different if not the guns? A week ago another murder happend here. (we are not totally safe) Guess what 'tool' was used. In the ongoing gangwar in DK, several people have been gunned down in the open ###### street! I don't like to think what would happen if guns were accessible to everyone. edit2: what would happen: I would be gunned down by Turks everytime I drive through Gellerup. (yo-king)
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can imagine that being asssaulted in your own home is traumatic, but giving people the right to LEGALLY KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) should never be written in any law, it simply goes against what most modern civilisations are trying to achieve. I would ofcourse, if I was assaulted in my own home, defend myself regardles of the law - but I would never take a gun to an intruder - clubbing him with something heavy and blunt would be the most for me. I have no fear of burglars though, I guess if you are constantly being robbed, you will get a lot more edgy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717475:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:39 PM:name=briktal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (briktal @ Jul 15 2009, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But what happens if you kill him?
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> He gets 1000 points for killing the bad guy(plus a 500pt style bonus), duh. Unless, of course, he's in <b>Germany</b>.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1717475:date=Jul 15 2009, 09:39 PM:name=briktal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (briktal @ Jul 15 2009, 09:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717475"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But what happens if you kill him?
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that that is how I would react, unable to comprehend of the consequences. Supplying someone with a gun in that situation wouldn't make it better.
<!--quoteo(post=1717483:date=Jul 15 2009, 05:23 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 05:23 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717483"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm saying that that is how I would react, unable to comprehend of the consequences. Supplying someone with a gun in that situation wouldn't make it better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, but legally, what would you expect/want to happen to you if you did kill him?
<!--quoteo(post=1717464:date=Jul 15 2009, 03:17 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jul 15 2009, 03:17 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717464"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I take it that you yourself didn't bother to read most of the thread, where no one argued that guns are the cause of violent crime, or that banning guns will end violent crime. Also, the fact that you're quoting the Daily Mail literally made me laugh out loud and spray my monitor with water.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read the thread in its entirety before my first post to it. Someone argued banning guns. What possible reasons are there to ban guns? Reduce accidental/negligent deaths and reduction of crime, right? What other legitimate reason is there?
BTW I'm not familiar with the Daily Mail, so I don't know what type of site it is. The reason I posted the link is that it was the first match referencing the report that I actually read since I couldn't find the link to the report itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wasn't saying that taking guns away from the families would prevent all crime. What you did was taking what I said and spin it to a ridicules, ignorant postulate so that nothing I said should be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. Could your reasoning for wanting to ban guns? I had a couple points. First, banning guns will reduce accidental/negligent deaths, but more children die each year due to accidental deaths in swimming pools (according to CDC), so if that's your true concern, why not promote the banning of swimming pools as well? There's fewer swimming pool owners, yet more deaths, sounds to me they're more dangerous (in terms of accidents). Second guns are NOT a huge source of violent crimes. In fact, guns aren't even involved in the vast majority of violent crimes (FBI's UCRs). Getting rid of the guns prevents people who are otherwise unable to defend themselves from young, athletic/in shape/strong, criminals. The efficiency and ease at which a gun can be used is specifically why people should be allowed access to them, particularly outside their homes.
A non-violent person is going to be non-violent regardless of guns. A violent person is going to be violent regardless of guns. The gun is the only thing that can equalize a situation in which the weak are being preyed upon. I agree that a 'sophisticated', or whatever name you want to use, society should not need to resort to such defenses, but this can only occur when there are no more situations that put people in fear of their lives or serious bodily injury and until then, we should not create more victims by preventing the only reasonable means of defense some people have. Maybe you are perfectly capable of taking on an attacker, but not everyone is. I know I'm not, particularly if they're weilding a knife. Which leads to my next point.
Knives are exceptionally dangerous. Sgt. Tuller of Salt Lake City, Utah PD did some experiments about 25 years ago. The results are basically that if someone is armed with a knife and are within 21 feet, they are an immediate threat to your life and officers should respond accordingly, not reason with or otherwise attempt to disarm because a knife, within 21 feet, is deadly enough to warrant an immediate response. It's a joke to think people are going to defend themselves against an adversary armed with a knife. Even if you do have a knife as well (which are illegal to carry in my state btw) you have a significant chance of serious bodily injury (or death).
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can imagine that being asssaulted in your own home is traumatic, but giving people the right to LEGALLY KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) should never be written in any law, it simply goes against what most modern civilisations are trying to achieve. I would ofcourse, if I was assaulted in my own home, defend myself regardles of the law - but I would never take a gun to an intruder - clubbing him with something heavy and blunt would be the most for me. I have no fear of burglars though, I guess if you are constantly being robbed, you will get a lot more edgy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds to me the issue you have is with a law allowing people to kill, not specifically a problem with guns in this situation. Again, this law allows people to legally kill another regardless of the presense or legality of guns.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This paragraph is interesting in it's accusational style. I won't question your sources because I genuinely believe such study exists, I can't help but question the factual circumstances of the study. What crimes were prevented? HOW is the crime prevented with the gun? (i.e. is "The officer unbuttoned his gun holster and the burglar was intimidated and put the chairleg he was wielding down, "preventing it with a gun"?) Questions like that. Don't you think that the majority of the prevented crimes (prevented with gun usage) are prevented by police officers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A FL State Uni criminologist did a study that determined that somewhere between 800k and 2.5M crimes were prevented by law abiding citizens each year. The Department of Justice disagreed and did a similar study. They determined the number was "only" 1.5M. The study was based around the "private" ownership of firearms, not government/state officers/agents/military/etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I seriously doubt that I or anyone I know would ever say something similar to "Good thing I had a gun, I prevented this crime" (had we had guns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you and everyone you know never has to say "Wish I had a gun." I don't think any of us go out of our homes and genuinely believe they're going to be a victim. That'd be a horrible way to live. That doesn't mean that you won't some day.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I AM NOT SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE CRIME RATES. I'm putting that in capital letters because I think your comment is stupid and that it is taking the empty void that would slot a better argument, had you had one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it stupid when you say you want to ban guns and the DoJ (who I'd say is a bit better authority on the matter than you) says there's about 1.5M defensive uses of guns each year? DoJ says guns are preventing crimes, a lot of crimes, 1.5M. You say you want rid of guns... where is the flaw in MY logic?
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because something is worse doesn't make shot kids a small issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying it's a small issue, but your priorities are out of whack. It's like saying X kills B kids each year, but Y kills C kid each year (where B is larger than C), but you want to ban X and not Y. When you put it into perspective, swimming pools are more dangerous, not just in pure numbers, but also percentage wise. I'd think people would understand that kids dying to guns is not as common as the media would have you think. If you really believe that accidental child deaths due to guns is bad enough that it warrants the banning of guns, then it also warrants the banning of everything that has a higher percentage of accidental deaths.
It's like banning certain drugs (ie marijuana), but allowing other drugs (ie alcohol)... alcohol causes far more damage to the individual, to society, and is more dangerous to others, than marijuana, but people think its rediculous to ban alcohol (well not everyone, but you see where I'm going).
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey, we have the most guncrime of the states in USA? Let's get more guns! Pro logic there, Bubbah.
Edited in a buttomline: Your point is (IT IS IT IS IT IS!!!!) that to be safe from crazy gunmen, you have to own a gun. How can I live here in DK, safe, without a gun? What makes your country different if not the guns?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guns in the hands of people who are non-violent does not increase crime. If I walk through a bank carrying a gun that doesn't make the bank less safe. I'm not going to rob the place, or shoot anyone, etc. The presense of me and my gun are in NO WAY making things less safe. However, if a criminal were to try to prey on me or my family, the presense of my gun would make us safer.
Our societies our different. I go back to the justice system. Yours probably works. Ours takes violent criminals and gives them slaps on the wrists and then takes marijuana users and keeps them in jail. It's completely rediculous. If you ignore the crimes that involve guns, we still have a rediculously high crime rate. Add in the fact that if guns were completely removed from society (somehow), then some of the crimes that involved guns would still be committed.
You can even look at just murder rates. Best I can find for DK is 0.98 murders per 100k population. Murders in the US that DON'T INVOLVE GUNS is still 3x that murder rate. We have a problem regardless of the presense of guns and the fact that ignoring all crimes regarding guns we still have a high crime and murder rate is evidence of that.
EDIT: when I reference deaths due to swimming pools, murder rates, and so forth I'm basing this off of US numbers mainly provided by the FBI's Unified Crime Reports, Center for Disease Control (I don't know why they do reports on things not related to diseases), and the US Department of Justice.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited July 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1717484:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:28 PM:name=briktal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (briktal @ Jul 15 2009, 10:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717484"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah, but legally, what would you expect/want to happen to you if you did kill him?
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would be arrested.
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
<!--quoteo(post=1717487:date=Jul 15 2009, 11:06 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 11:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717487"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Guns in the hands of people who are non-violent does not increase crime. If I walk through a bank carrying a gun that doesn't make the bank less safe. I'm not going to rob the place, or shoot anyone, etc. The presense of me and my gun are in NO WAY making things less safe. However, if a criminal were to try to prey on me or my family, the presense of my gun would make us safer.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we are back to "guns aren't evil and I certainly am not either, nothing will happen in an infinite amount of years".
I don't agree with you. I find owning a gun pointless apart from shooting at targets at a range. It's one of those many topics that, when discussed online, can't be settled.
<!--quoteo(post=1717488:date=Jul 15 2009, 11:07 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 11:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would be arrested.
edit: dobbeltpost, yes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I really don't like how lighthearted you said that. You would accept to go to prison just because you defended yourself from a burglar?!
Comments
First they came for the killergamers
...
When they came for me,
I didn't know how to fight.
~~Sickle~~
govies always live with the "fad of the day", WTF get back to work/government things you lazy bums!
<a href="http://www.ammoland.com/2009/05/27/ammunition-shortage-2/" target="_blank">http://www.ammoland.com/2009/05/27/ammunition-shortage-2/</a>
<a href="http://www.ammoland.com/2009/05/27/ammunition-shortage-2/" target="_blank">http://www.ammoland.com/2009/05/27/ammunition-shortage-2/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1393996/ammunition_shortage_feared_by_gun_owners.html" target="_blank">http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...gun_owners.html</a>
"And as gun owners have continued to buy up guns and ammo before Obama takes office, they have created a self fulfilled prophesy of an ammunition shortage."
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-29-ammo-shortage_N.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-0...-shortage_N.htm</a>
"Concern that the Obama administration could impose a new ban on some semiautomatic weapons is driving worried gun owners to stockpile ammunition and cartridge reloading components at such a rate that manufacturers can't meet demand."
Looks like Democrats taking office is the best thing for gun and ammo manufacturers in a long time.
...
When they came for me,
I didn't know how to fight.
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I kinda feel bad laughing at this.
[edit]
Also, "safe firearms users" make their own ammunition.
erm, I dont get this one. Ofcourse you can push the projectiles into the cartridges yourself, but why would every "safe firearms user" do this himself instead of buying his ammo at the gun store? It's not like mass manufactured ammo would be likely to fail more often than "homemade" ammo (you still have to buy the blast caps, projectiles, cartridges and the powder...).
Looks like Democrats taking office is the best thing for gun and ammo manufacturers in a long time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't get me started on Obama. That's a whole new layer of burnt toast on my flaming agenda.
I believe the reason there is a higher gun crime rate than some other countries is due to the fact that our "justice" system is completely worthless. In my state some dude armed a store at gun point. He plea bargained his gun charges away (he wasn't legally allowed to possess the gun in the first place). He got out of jail in 6 months, murdered a cop with yet another gun. This stuff happens over and over. People who aren't allowed to own guns use guns and then the gun charges are dropped. We have plenty of laws that will keep repeat offenders out of jail, but we keep throwing the charges away. USE THE LAWS.
Even in non-firearm related crimes, violent criminals are given slaps on the wrist.
<!--quoteo(post=1717414:date=Jul 15 2009, 09:53 AM:name=PhiXX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PhiXX @ Jul 15 2009, 09:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717414"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->erm, I dont get this one. Ofcourse you can push the projectiles into the cartridges yourself, but why would every "safe firearms user" do this himself instead of buying his ammo at the gun store? It's not like mass manufactured ammo would be likely to fail more often than "homemade" ammo (you still have to buy the blast caps, projectiles, cartridges and the powder...).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can customize ammo for an individual firearm and get the most accuracy possible out of your firearm, more so than you can with bought ammo and you can do it at about the cost of the cheapest mass produced ammo. That being said, there's not just an ammo shortage, there's also a shortage of primers ("blast caps") and powders.
I don't agree that to be safe you "roll your own", but those that are more into shooting often due for cost and/or accuracy reasons.
1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).
2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.
3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.
4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.
5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.
Though make no mistake, these laws are nothing more than a "stupidity" filter. I don't think it would eliminate problems completely, but I also don't think attempting to remove guns entirely would be any better.
1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).
2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.
3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.
4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.
5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.
Though make no mistake, these laws are nothing more than a "stupidity" filter. I don't think it would eliminate problems completely, but I also don't think attempting to remove guns entirely would be any better.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I won't agree to ordinary civillians having guns no matter what "filter" you apply. Shootings will still happen if a person wants it too. The way I see it, people who own guns are either hunters or persons enjoying firing at the shooting range - why can't the guns be locked in safely at the shooting range? Why do you have to take it home with you?
As for people arguing for how a gun is a home security tool, I will only take you as serious as to ask if ordinary people should have the right to sentence an intruder to death for breaking and entering?
I'm tired and this post contains poorly structured sentences and grammar.
That's called a "castle doctrine," and yes, that right exists in certain states.
Is that supposed to be a dig at me? Because I stopped trying to rationalise with you after you continued to argue with me about an argument I never made. ~better things to do~
Or their fists.
Or this thing:
<a href="http://thefunctionkey.com/2009/01/28/self-defense-nightstand/" target="_blank">http://thefunctionkey.com/2009/01/28/self-...nse-nightstand/</a>
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=above)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (above)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was joking, guys. ^_^<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just trying to break the tension a little bit. Jeeze, don't take me so seriously.
Hey, internet discussion is serios[sic] business.
<b>Hawkeye</b>, your regulations seem pretty good for handgun/hunting rifle/shotgun style weapons. I don't see the need for anyone to own an assault weapon. I disagree on one point though:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think it should be made public. That sounds like letting criminals know the "soft" houses to hit.
iirc, some in some states it's actually legal to shoot someone as they're actually running away from you (if they've broken into your house). I may be wrong, though. I remember it coming from that thread about that old guy who shot two robbers dead when the 911 operator told him to not even go outside.
As for people arguing for how a gun is a home security tool, I will only take you as serious as to ask if ordinary people should have the right to sentence an intruder to death for breaking and entering?
I'm tired and this post contains poorly structured sentences and grammar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me to properly respond to this post would require several pages which you'd most certainly never bother reading, but I'll try to keep it short:
While there are plenty of crimes committed with guns, there are plenty committed without. And many violent crimes will STILL be committed regardless of access to guns. UK is a perfect example, most violent country in europe despite banning handguns. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html</a>
In many states it is LEGAL TO KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) if you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily injury. Gun or no gun, citizens already have this right in most places. If you CHOOSE to be helpless then that is your choice, but don't go forcing your stupidity on others.
There are also many situations in which one needs to defend themselves outside of their home. University studies show that guns are used to PREVENT crime 1.5 - 2.5 million times each year, so you are essentially saying you would like to increase crime rates. Just because you don't hear about this stuff in the media (because it doesn't scare people) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Similarly just because it doesn't fit with what you believe doesn't make it any less true.
<!--quoteo(post=1717444:date=Jul 15 2009, 01:18 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jul 15 2009, 01:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717444"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's called a "castle doctrine," and yes, that right exists in certain states.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Castle doctrine is simply a name for a type of law that prevents the CRIMINAL (home intruder) or criminal's family from then SUEING the VICTIM (home owner) after the victim (home owner) protected themselves and those sorts of lawsuits are absolute bull######. Now you can argue that the "criminal" (intruder) isn't a criminal until the courts decide he is, and I agree with you, but castle doctrine only protects the "victim" (home owner) in this case from civil suits IF he is found innocent in criminal court for causing serious bodily injury or death to the criminal (intruder). So castle doctrine isn't what a lot of anti-gun people call a "license to kill". It is simply given an exemption in civil court if the courts rule that the person protected themselves and their family in a manner consistent with law. This is not restricted to guns.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) All citizens who wish to acquire a gun license must go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics (you'd be surprised how many people this simple test would stop alone).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think people should have to go through a mandatory course at the end of which is a simple test of ethics before you're allowed to exercise your first amendment rights. We don't need any more hate filled or politically incorrect speech coming from people. It just causes hatred and more violence. While we're at it, we should make it difficult to exercise any rights. Nevermind, the US is (still) a free country.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2) Criminals caught bearing or owning firearms, in addition to having their gun license removed permanently, are placed on a list by which they can be arrested for simply being in possession of a firearm. Such a list would be made available to the public like the sex-offenders list.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are already tons of crimes, even things like DUI, that will have your right to own firearms suspended PERMANENTLY. The problem with such a list is enforcement. Are you going to go around checking people don't have guns? Where's the privacy? Criminals don't buy guns legally anyway, they're not allowed to posess them. So why would they get the license before buying? Simply put, they wouldn't since they don't get their guns from gun dealers anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->3) Citizens who have had gun-related accidents have their license suspended for 5 years. If it happens a second time the license is removed permanently.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Accidents are different than negligence and stupidity. Most gun related "accidents" are actually negligence and/or stupidity. Fun fact, more kids are killed each year by drowning in swimming pools than by firearms. Let's ban those too.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->4) All gun manufacturers are obliged to provide a unique identification for each gun produced and they are obliged to register the identifier for every gun sold and the business and location it was sold to.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All gun manufacturers are required by federal law to have a unique serial number stamped onto the frame of every firearm. The serial numbers and to who they are sold (dealers) are required to be tracked. Dealers in turn are required to keep a bound book of EVERY firearm transaction that goes through their store. The BATF regularly checks up on this stuff and screws with firearm dealers over the pettiest things.
<!--quoteo(post=1717430:date=Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM:name=Hawkeye)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawkeye @ Jul 15 2009, 10:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717430"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->5) Gun shops are obliged to register every gun bought for reselling and every gun sold to any customer (meaning if according to the registry, they should have x guns of a certain type but they have y guns of a certain type, some have been sold without being registered). If a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun without being registered, they can be shut down. Similarly, if a gun shop is suspected and proven to have sold a gun to a customer whose license can be found on the list in #2, they can be shut down.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Already law, except for the list #2 thing. Federal law requires ID and a background check be done for every sale and if the person fails the background check the gun is not allowed to be sold. This is a serious offense for a dealer, they will be shut down.
I'd also like to point out that NY state has taken the gun registration a step further and requires a "ballistics fingerprint" to be kept on file for every gun sold in the state. This, in theory, will allow evidence at the scene to be matched to the ballistics fingerprint database and know exactly what firearm was used in the crime and who owns it. It costs $1.5M/year to run the system (since March 2001) and has yet to be useful. Maryland has had a similar system for slightly longer than NY.
"In 2004, a report by the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division concluded that the ballistic imaging system “had not proven to be a time saving tool for the firearms examiner or an investigative enhancement to the criminal investigator,†and that “it has simply failed in the mission and vision concepts originally established for the program.â€"
I'd also like to point out that the states with the most gun crimes and most violence overall are also the states that make it the most difficult for citizens to defend themselves, or out right preventing them entirely. If that's not an example of failed gun control, I guess gun control advocates will never follow logic and actual numbers/facts.
EDIT: fixed a couple typos, I know there's lots more.
While there are plenty of crimes committed with guns, there are plenty committed without. And many violent crimes will STILL be committed regardless of access to guns. UK is a perfect example, most violent country in europe despite banning handguns. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...Africa-U-S.html</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take it that you yourself didn't bother to read most of the thread, where no one argued that guns are the cause of violent crime, or that banning guns will end violent crime. Also, the fact that you're quoting the Daily Mail literally made me laugh out loud and spray my monitor with water.
I also laughed so hard that I spat my drink out, but luckily my hands got in the way in time and only my clothes got covered instead.
I wasn't saying that taking guns away from the families would prevent all crime. What you did was taking what I said and spin it to a ridicules, ignorant postulate so that nothing I said should be taken seriously.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In many states it is LEGAL TO KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) if you are in immediate fear for your life or serious bodily injury. Gun or no gun, citizens already have this right in most places. If you CHOOSE to be helpless then that is your choice, but don't go forcing your stupidity on others.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can imagine that being asssaulted in your own home is traumatic, but giving people the right to LEGALLY KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) should never be written in any law, it simply goes against what most modern civilisations are trying to achieve. I would ofcourse, if I was assaulted in my own home, defend myself regardles of the law - but I would never take a gun to an intruder - clubbing him with something heavy and blunt would be the most for me. I have no fear of burglars though, I guess if you are constantly being robbed, you will get a lot more edgy.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There are also many situations in which one needs to defend themselves outside of their home. University studies show that guns are used to PREVENT crime 1.5 - 2.5 million times each year, so you are essentially saying you would like to increase crime rates. Just because you don't hear about this stuff in the media (because it doesn't scare people) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Similarly just because it doesn't fit with what you believe doesn't make it any less true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This paragraph is interesting in it's accusational style.
I won't question your sources because I genuinely believe such study exists, I can't help but question the factual circumstances of the study. What crimes were prevented? HOW is the crime prevented with the gun? (i.e. is "The officer unbuttoned his gun holster and the burglar was intimidated and put the chairleg he was wielding down, "preventing it with a gun"?) Questions like that. Don't you think that the majority of the prevented crimes (prevented with gun usage) are prevented by police officers? I seriously doubt that I or anyone I know would ever say something similar to "Good thing I had a gun, I prevented this crime" (had we had guns).
I AM NOT SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE CRIME RATES. I'm putting that in capital letters because I think your comment is stupid and that it is taking the empty void that would slot a better argument, had you had one.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->first amendment KILLS PEOPLE.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Following your example I took the liberty of fixing that for you. THAT IS WHAT YOU MENT.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Accidents are different than negligence and stupidity. Most gun related "accidents" are actually negligence and/or stupidity. Fun fact, more kids are killed each year by drowning in swimming pools than by firearms. Let's ban those too.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just because something is worse doesn't make shot kids a small issue.
<!--quoteo(post=1717461:date=Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM:name=asmodee)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (asmodee @ Jul 15 2009, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717461"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd also like to point out that the states with the most gun crimes and most violence overall are also the states that make it the most difficult for citizens to defend themselves, or out right preventing them entirely. If that's not an example of failed gun control, I guess gun control advocates will never follow logic and actual numbers/facts.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, we have the most guncrime of the states in USA? Let's get more guns! Pro logic there, Bubbah.
Edited in a buttomline: Your point is (IT IS IT IS IT IS!!!!) that to be safe from crazy gunmen, you have to own a gun. How can I live here in DK, safe, without a gun? What makes your country different if not the guns?
A week ago another murder happend here. (we are not totally safe) Guess what 'tool' was used. In the ongoing gangwar in DK, several people have been gunned down in the open ###### street! I don't like to think what would happen if guns were accessible to everyone.
edit2: what would happen: I would be gunned down by Turks everytime I drive through Gellerup. (yo-king)
But what happens if you kill him?
~~Sickle~~
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He gets 1000 points for killing the bad guy(plus a 500pt style bonus), duh. Unless, of course, he's in <b>Germany</b>.
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm saying that that is how I would react, unable to comprehend of the consequences. Supplying someone with a gun in that situation wouldn't make it better.
Yeah, but legally, what would you expect/want to happen to you if you did kill him?
~~Sickle~~
I read the thread in its entirety before my first post to it. Someone argued banning guns. What possible reasons are there to ban guns? Reduce accidental/negligent deaths and reduction of crime, right? What other legitimate reason is there?
BTW I'm not familiar with the Daily Mail, so I don't know what type of site it is. The reason I posted the link is that it was the first match referencing the report that I actually read since I couldn't find the link to the report itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wasn't saying that taking guns away from the families would prevent all crime. What you did was taking what I said and spin it to a ridicules, ignorant postulate so that nothing I said should be taken seriously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. Could your reasoning for wanting to ban guns? I had a couple points. First, banning guns will reduce accidental/negligent deaths, but more children die each year due to accidental deaths in swimming pools (according to CDC), so if that's your true concern, why not promote the banning of swimming pools as well? There's fewer swimming pool owners, yet more deaths, sounds to me they're more dangerous (in terms of accidents). Second guns are NOT a huge source of violent crimes. In fact, guns aren't even involved in the vast majority of violent crimes (FBI's UCRs). Getting rid of the guns prevents people who are otherwise unable to defend themselves from young, athletic/in shape/strong, criminals. The efficiency and ease at which a gun can be used is specifically why people should be allowed access to them, particularly outside their homes.
A non-violent person is going to be non-violent regardless of guns. A violent person is going to be violent regardless of guns. The gun is the only thing that can equalize a situation in which the weak are being preyed upon. I agree that a 'sophisticated', or whatever name you want to use, society should not need to resort to such defenses, but this can only occur when there are no more situations that put people in fear of their lives or serious bodily injury and until then, we should not create more victims by preventing the only reasonable means of defense some people have. Maybe you are perfectly capable of taking on an attacker, but not everyone is. I know I'm not, particularly if they're weilding a knife. Which leads to my next point.
Knives are exceptionally dangerous. Sgt. Tuller of Salt Lake City, Utah PD did some experiments about 25 years ago. The results are basically that if someone is armed with a knife and are within 21 feet, they are an immediate threat to your life and officers should respond accordingly, not reason with or otherwise attempt to disarm because a knife, within 21 feet, is deadly enough to warrant an immediate response. It's a joke to think people are going to defend themselves against an adversary armed with a knife. Even if you do have a knife as well (which are illegal to carry in my state btw) you have a significant chance of serious bodily injury (or death).
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can imagine that being asssaulted in your own home is traumatic, but giving people the right to LEGALLY KILL another human being (using a gun or otherwise) should never be written in any law, it simply goes against what most modern civilisations are trying to achieve. I would ofcourse, if I was assaulted in my own home, defend myself regardles of the law - but I would never take a gun to an intruder - clubbing him with something heavy and blunt would be the most for me. I have no fear of burglars though, I guess if you are constantly being robbed, you will get a lot more edgy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds to me the issue you have is with a law allowing people to kill, not specifically a problem with guns in this situation. Again, this law allows people to legally kill another regardless of the presense or legality of guns.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This paragraph is interesting in it's accusational style.
I won't question your sources because I genuinely believe such study exists, I can't help but question the factual circumstances of the study. What crimes were prevented? HOW is the crime prevented with the gun? (i.e. is "The officer unbuttoned his gun holster and the burglar was intimidated and put the chairleg he was wielding down, "preventing it with a gun"?) Questions like that. Don't you think that the majority of the prevented crimes (prevented with gun usage) are prevented by police officers?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A FL State Uni criminologist did a study that determined that somewhere between 800k and 2.5M crimes were prevented by law abiding citizens each year. The Department of Justice disagreed and did a similar study. They determined the number was "only" 1.5M. The study was based around the "private" ownership of firearms, not government/state officers/agents/military/etc.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I seriously doubt that I or anyone I know would ever say something similar to "Good thing I had a gun, I prevented this crime" (had we had guns).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you and everyone you know never has to say "Wish I had a gun." I don't think any of us go out of our homes and genuinely believe they're going to be a victim. That'd be a horrible way to live. That doesn't mean that you won't some day.
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I AM NOT SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO INCREASE CRIME RATES. I'm putting that in capital letters because I think your comment is stupid and that it is taking the empty void that would slot a better argument, had you had one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it stupid when you say you want to ban guns and the DoJ (who I'd say is a bit better authority on the matter than you) says there's about 1.5M defensive uses of guns each year? DoJ says guns are preventing crimes, a lot of crimes, 1.5M. You say you want rid of guns... where is the flaw in MY logic?
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because something is worse doesn't make shot kids a small issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying it's a small issue, but your priorities are out of whack. It's like saying X kills B kids each year, but Y kills C kid each year (where B is larger than C), but you want to ban X and not Y. When you put it into perspective, swimming pools are more dangerous, not just in pure numbers, but also percentage wise. I'd think people would understand that kids dying to guns is not as common as the media would have you think. If you really believe that accidental child deaths due to guns is bad enough that it warrants the banning of guns, then it also warrants the banning of everything that has a higher percentage of accidental deaths.
It's like banning certain drugs (ie marijuana), but allowing other drugs (ie alcohol)... alcohol causes far more damage to the individual, to society, and is more dangerous to others, than marijuana, but people think its rediculous to ban alcohol (well not everyone, but you see where I'm going).
<!--quoteo(post=1717474:date=Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Abra @ Jul 15 2009, 04:18 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1717474"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hey, we have the most guncrime of the states in USA? Let's get more guns! Pro logic there, Bubbah.
Edited in a buttomline: Your point is (IT IS IT IS IT IS!!!!) that to be safe from crazy gunmen, you have to own a gun. How can I live here in DK, safe, without a gun? What makes your country different if not the guns?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Guns in the hands of people who are non-violent does not increase crime. If I walk through a bank carrying a gun that doesn't make the bank less safe. I'm not going to rob the place, or shoot anyone, etc. The presense of me and my gun are in NO WAY making things less safe. However, if a criminal were to try to prey on me or my family, the presense of my gun would make us safer.
Our societies our different. I go back to the justice system. Yours probably works. Ours takes violent criminals and gives them slaps on the wrists and then takes marijuana users and keeps them in jail. It's completely rediculous. If you ignore the crimes that involve guns, we still have a rediculously high crime rate. Add in the fact that if guns were completely removed from society (somehow), then some of the crimes that involved guns would still be committed.
You can even look at just murder rates. Best I can find for DK is 0.98 murders per 100k population. Murders in the US that DON'T INVOLVE GUNS is still 3x that murder rate. We have a problem regardless of the presense of guns and the fact that ignoring all crimes regarding guns we still have a high crime and murder rate is evidence of that.
EDIT: when I reference deaths due to swimming pools, murder rates, and so forth I'm basing this off of US numbers mainly provided by the FBI's Unified Crime Reports, Center for Disease Control (I don't know why they do reports on things not related to diseases), and the US Department of Justice.
~~Sickle~~<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would be arrested.
edit: dobbeltpost, yes.
And we are back to "guns aren't evil and I certainly am not either, nothing will happen in an infinite amount of years".
I don't agree with you. I find owning a gun pointless apart from shooting at targets at a range. It's one of those many topics that, when discussed online, can't be settled.
edit: dobbeltpost, yes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't like how lighthearted you said that. You would accept to go to prison just because you defended yourself from a burglar?!