High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by badnarik

The reason you don't hear about homeowners defending themselves is because it usually isn't news unless the homeowner actually shoots the intruder. Guns are a deterrent to intruders too. There is no way to keep and compare statistics for these things.

Firstly, how would an intruder know the homeowner had a gun? How can it be a deterent unless the gunowner had a notice on their lawn saying "don't break in, I've got a gun".

Secondly, I think you would still hear about the success story of grandpa who kept his magnum under his pillow and successfully scared away 2 intruders when they broke in. If it was a common practice of protection, you would most definitely hear about it somewhere. I know I'd love to hear the news report about grandpa turning into rambo and defending is territory.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Firstly, how would an intruder know the homeowner had a gun? How can it be a deterent unless the gunowner had a notice on their lawn saying "don't break in, I've got a gun".

Secondly, I think you would still hear about the success story of grandpa who kept his magnum under his pillow and successfully scared away 2 intruders when they broke in. If it was a common practice of protection, you would most definitely hear about it somewhere. I know I'd love to hear the news report about grandpa turning into rambo and defending is territory.

http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/1818612
http://www.katu.com/news/8245062.html

others
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_n24939425
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15764120/detail.html

There are lots of these stories, all local in the US, they just dont make the news in canada

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by badnarik

The reason you don't hear about homeowners defending themselves is because it usually isn't news unless the homeowner actually shoots the intruder. Guns are a deterrent to intruders too. There is no way to keep and compare statistics for these things.

I'm not much good on statistics, but I do watch the news.

If some creep breaks into a house and the homeowner has the wherewithal to pull his gun and chase the guy off the hero is going to get top-billing on the 6 o'clock news.

It'd be a good story and a lot of people will want to hear it. The media won't ignore that kind of thing.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/1818612

The criminal in that story had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Lively had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, issued in August 2004, said Capt. Doug Hunter of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office.

"The fact he's recently run afoul of the law has resulted in the permit being revoked" as of Thursday, Hunter said.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you're completely off your rocker here, even WITH the sarcasm. Pretty sure a rocket launcher would be labeled as explosive ordnance, and not a firearm, so sorry....your point is moot.

Well, I'm pretty darn sure that knives, swimming pools and cars do not fall under firearm legislation, but if you can show otherwise I'd be happy if you could correct me.

Pro-gun people can walk around touting that "bans" on guns are hypocritical because if you ban one thing that can kill people, you have to ban all things that kill people.

But if an anti-gun person says that if you drop bans on one type of weapon, it would be hypocritical to be for a ban of another type of weapon - that's off limits because it falls under the "explosive ordinance"?!?

There needs to be a line drawn as to what level of weapon the general populace will have access to. You can't say "if the line is that people can't have handguns, it's a slippery slope to swimming pools and baseball bats" while saying "rocket launchers don't count because they fall under a different ordinance".

I think most reasonable people are for a line somewhere. The argument that if we ban weapons that kill people we would then have to ban cars and swimming pools is horribly flawed in that it is arguing for no ban at all. So I get my rocket launcher. W00t!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by badnarik

The reason you don't hear about homeowners defending themselves is because it usually isn't news unless the homeowner actually shoots the intruder. Guns are a deterrent to intruders too. There is no way to keep and compare statistics for these things.

Ah, but someone did.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...4578031&sr=8-1

Also...

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

His complete study....if you actually WANT to read it.

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Well, I'm pretty darn sure that knives, swimming pools and cars do not fall under firearm legislation, but if you can show otherwise I'd be happy if you could correct me.

Pro-gun people can walk around touting that "bans" on guns are hypocritical because if you ban one thing that can kill people, you have to ban all things that kill people.

But if an anti-gun person says that if you drop bans on one type of weapon, it would be hypocritical to be for a ban of another type of weapon - that's off limits because it falls under the "explosive ordinance"?!?

There needs to be a line drawn as to what level of weapon the general populace will have access to. You can't say "if the line is that people can't have handguns, it's a slippery slope to swimming pools and baseball bats" while saying "rocket launchers don't count because they fall under a different ordinance".

I think most reasonable people are for a line somewhere. The argument that if we ban weapons that kill people we would then have to ban cars and swimming pools is horribly flawed in that it is arguing for no ban at all. So I get my rocket launcher. W00t!

Ah, no you don't get your rocket launcher.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. There HAS been a line drawn as to what kind of weapons someone can own. A rocket launcher is not part of it.

And the only reason I said that cars, knives, etc, etc can kill people too, was because of what someone mentioned about people who go crazy and want to kill someone, and they own a gun....that guns should be banned to prevent them from using the gun to kill someone in their insanity. The point is that if someone goes insane, and wants to kill someone, he'll use any tool at his disposal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Firstly, how would an intruder know the homeowner had a gun? How can it be a deterent unless the gunowner had a notice on their lawn saying "don't break in, I've got a gun".

Secondly, I think you would still hear about the success story of grandpa who kept his magnum under his pillow and successfully scared away 2 intruders when they broke in. If it was a common practice of protection, you would most definitely hear about it somewhere. I know I'd love to hear the news report about grandpa turning into rambo and defending is territory.

It is common.

Over 2 million incidents each year. The media just doesn't report on it, and you obviously haven't researched it either.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Once again, one of the weakest arguments most pro gun types could possibly bring up. Cars and knives have purposes other than to kill people. Guns aren't used to drive you to the store, and guns aren't used to cut your food for you. Guns are a device with one singular purpose; to kill a living being.

And you missed the point.

...the only reason I said that cars, knives, etc, etc can kill people too, was because of what someone mentioned about people who go crazy and want to kill someone, and they own a gun....that guns should be banned to prevent them from using the gun to kill someone in their insanity. The point is that if someone goes insane, and wants to kill someone, he'll use any tool at his disposal.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not much good on statistics, but I do watch the news.

If some creep breaks into a house and the homeowner has the wherewithal to pull his gun and chase the guy off the hero is going to get top-billing on the 6 o'clock news.

It'd be a good story and a lot of people will want to hear it. The media won't ignore that kind of thing.

Yeah, well obviously the national media is.

I'm sure local coverage will have it on the news, but you don't want Channel 6 news out of local town in North Carolina, do you? Well, neither does the rest of the country.

[transplant99]

I think there is a massive misconception about a good portion of Americans going on in here.

I have many many US friends obviously, and some are gun owners, some are not. The one thing I think is being misconstrued here is that even non-gun owners understand that this goes beyond just "guns", but rather it is a constitutional issue.

As a resident of this fine country for almost 9 years now, I can say without hesititaion that the gun "problem" is somewhat limited to certain areas although it can hapen anywhere at any time. Its not like there are guys running around shooting people everywhere you go, but certainly the amount of gun felonies is way too high for anyones liking. Just a week or so ago a State Trooped pulled a guy over for an expired tag about 20 miles from my home....15 minutes later the 24 year old policeman and father and husband lay dead on I-40. Brutal stuff. The perpetrator though? A convicted violent felon whoom had illegally obtained guns somewhere...so even a trained officer who had a weapon lost this one, but if he had had the chance, he would still be alive me thinks. Same goes for those in their homes.

Anyone who thinks that MOST folks who buy guns are not responsible with them is out to lunch.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Azure

And you missed the point.

...the only reason I said that cars, knives, etc, etc can kill people too, was because of what someone mentioned about people who go crazy and want to kill someone, and they own a gun....that guns should be banned to prevent them from using the gun to kill someone in their insanity. The point is that if someone goes insane, and wants to kill someone, he'll use any tool at his disposal.

You're right, if someone snaps they will use any tool at their disposal. But of all the tools available to them, why make guns so easily accessible? Why make their job easier? I would rather have a psychotic person come after me with a knife than a gun. Someone who snaps and decides to shoot up a school will do a lot less damage with something other than a gun.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Igottago

You're right, if someone snaps they will use any tool at their disposal. But of all the tools available to them, why make guns so easily accessible? Why make their job easier? I would rather have a psychotic person come after me with a knife than a gun. Someone who snaps and decides to shoot up a school will do a lot less damage with something other than a gun.

I agree, don't make it easier to acquire guns. This ruling had nothing to do with that though.

It is a constitutional right to own a gun for self defense in the United States. The Supreme Court just verified that, despite a bunch of stupid city politicians trying to implement gun bans that don't do ANYTHING to curb gun crime.

[Gozer]

The NRA regularly promotes harsher punishment for gun-related crimes. I've heard them talk about guys with double-digit weapons charges being freed and killing cops.

Enforce the laws that are on the books.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The NRA regularly promotes harsher punishment for gun-related crimes. I've heard them talk about guys with double-digit weapons charges being freed and killing cops.

Enforce the laws that are on the books.

Yeah, there was an article on Drudge a few months ago about someone with a HUGE list of weapons violations getting out of prison and killing someone.

No, I'm not going to go search for it. I can't even remember if Breitbart or Reuters had the article.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

The problem isn't with the people that own handguns and properly store and look after them. The problem is the idiots who don't look after their guns, and use them as IF it were the Wild West.

That argument is a fallacy. Of course responsible gun owners don't commit crimes, because they are not criminals. You are either one or the other. You can't be both. Responsible gun owners do cross the line and commit crimes, then they are criminals. What you are saying is, people who don't commit crimes with guns are people who don't commit crimes with guns.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not much good on statistics, but I do watch the news.

If some creep breaks into a house and the homeowner has the wherewithal to pull his gun and chase the guy off the hero is going to get top-billing on the 6 o'clock news.

It'd be a good story and a lot of people will want to hear it. The media won't ignore that kind of thing.

Although you probably would never read one. Gun magazines have stories about such events all the time.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is common.

Over 2 million incidents each year. The media just doesn't report on it, and you obviously haven't researched it either.

Let's do the math........assuming there's an estimated 300 million people in the US means that over 0.5% of the population or over 6/300 people have to deal with incidents where they have to use a gun each year when threatened at their home.

Obviously higher in some areas of the country such as some major cities and lower in other areas, but an interesting stat.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That argument is a fallacy. Of course responsible gun owners don't commit crimes, because they are not criminals. You are either one or the other. You can't be both. Responsible gun owners do cross the line and commit crimes, then they are criminals. What you are saying is, people who don't commit crimes with guns are people who don't commit crimes with guns.

You're not a criminal because you accidentally leave your gun and ammo in the same room for 15 min and your kid comes, takes it, and ends up shooting his friend with it. Sheer stupidity, but not a criminal action.

Even with the Canadian Gun Laws, there are only 'guidelines' to follow regarding gun safety in your own home. Nobody is going to 'force' you to lock them up.

But you'll find that most law-abiding people who own guns are very responsible.

[RougeUnderoos]

Now I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems just a little "odd" when I read stuff like "more guns = less crime" and to back it up they say that 2 million people a year are fending off criminals with firearms.

If more guns = less crime, why are there so many criminals being fended off with guns? And if criminals are afraid of people with guns, how come people with guns are so often preyed upon by criminals? According to the study (and I suppose a calculator), a citizen fends off a criminal with a gun every 13 seconds in the United States. That's an awful lot of crimes being committed in a place with a lot of guns. What percentage of total crimes are foiled by guns? It can't be a very big number. Smaller than 10 I'll bet.

It's a goddamn crime wave down there. The guns don't seem to be stopping it.