It's almost as if criminals don't care for the law.
But yes, let's ensure that before someone violates your rights and breaks into your house, lets violate your rights first so they only get off with the jewelry while not having a care in the world. Thanks mom.
You really need to redefine what you think "criminals" are after.
Someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff. If they're only after your TV or a painting or jewlery, whatever, I'm sorry, you don't have the right to execute them. Theft is not a capital crime.
Obviously nobody wants to suffer a home invasion, but a great way to ensure nobody ever sneaks up on you is to get a dog. Keep a baseball bat by the bed, and if you hear a noise in the night, you don't accidentally shoot your own kid on the way to the bathroom.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone would attempt a home robbery on an American residence without knowing for a fact nobody was there.
If guns really protected people the way gun enthusiasts claim, Omaha Beach should've been the safest place on Earth.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
You really need to redefine what you think "criminals" are after.
Someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff. If they're only after your TV or a painting or jewlery, whatever, I'm sorry, you don't have the right to execute them. Theft is not a capital crime.
Obviously nobody wants to suffer a home invasion, but a great way to ensure nobody ever sneaks up on you is to get a dog. Keep a baseball bat by the bed, and if you hear a noise in the night, you don't accidentally shoot your own kid on the way to the bathroom.
Frankly, I don't know why anyone would attempt a home robbery on an American residence without knowing for a fact nobody was there.
If guns really protected people the way gun enthusiasts claim, Omaha Beach should've been the safest place on Earth.
I've said it before that using a gun for home defense has a whole lot of problems.
First of all, get someone that's pumped up on adrenaline in a darkened house with noise coming from downstairs and a twitchy finger and its more likely that you're going to put a hole in your kid coming home late. Or jump into a confrontation that you're not prepared for. Worst case, you end up giving a gun to a person that broke into your house to steal your TV that doesn't have a gun.
A gun gives you a false sense of security to me. It makes a person move towards danger rather then away from danger.
The most powerful home defense mechanism is a safety plan and a phone. Unless you've drawn the attention of the local drug cartel, a burgler isn't going to stick around if they hear a person on the phone through a locked door for example. If your first move with a gun is towards trouble, you're actually not doing a good job of defending your family.
Also, if someone breaks into your house and has a gun and is prepared to use it, I'm betting that the odds are significantly in their favor.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Canada has no registry for non-restricted firearms, yet we don't have an issue with people showing responsibility for their firearms.
I don't give two squirts about Canada or Canadian law. This is the Ongoing US Mass Shooting thread. If you want to piss and moan about Canada and Canadian gun laws please start an Ongoing Canadian Mass Shooting thread and discuss it there. Would seem ridiculous to do so, since Canada doesn't have an ongoing problem with mass shootings. I think that might have something to do with the fact that our neighbors up north, unlike us Americans, have their heads anywhere but up their ass when it comes to responsible gun ownership.
Quote:
As to the second part, my post was in response to wittynickname claiming that the NRA did not want to modernize background checks and that the information used for them is kept on paper. I'm well aware that the NICS system and the Tracing Center are different.
No, you clearly are not. Otherwise why try and conflate the two or introduce them together when they are completely different mechanisms with completely different purposes? If you knew the difference you were then just trying to score cheap debate points, or trying to confuse someone who doesn't understand. Since this isn't the first time I've had to correct you on the subject, I'll go with the probability that you yourself don't know either.
I really get tired of people who claim to be pro-gun but don't know #### about them or the actual laws and mechanisms used to protect one's rights to access those weapons. There are way too many like that in the NRA, and it appears there are a few of them up in the great white north as well. Get educated man, you're making responsible gun owners look ridiculous.
I've said it before that using a gun for home defense has a whole lot of problems.
I agree. Too many people think they can pull a gun and start blasting away. They better realize that every round that leaves the muzzle is the responsibility of the individual who pulled the trigger. Know what is down range and make sure you are using ammunition suitable for the purpose at hand. A hand gun with a full metal jacket is more likely to end up in a neighbor as it is in someone breaking into your house. They will penetrate through stick and drywall walls and keep going until they hit something that will catch the bullet. Know what type of round is going to fragment and do little damage when it misses. Best solution, get yourself a 12 gauge pump action shotgun and fill it with #4 buck shot. When you rack that beast most smart criminals will run the other way. If you have to pull the trigger its going to create some spaghetti sauce when it hits the thief, and anything that misses will lodge in your walls.
Quote:
First of all, get someone that's pumped up on adrenaline in a darkened house with noise coming from downstairs and a twitchy finger and its more likely that you're going to put a hole in your kid coming home late. Or jump into a confrontation that you're not prepared for. Worst case, you end up giving a gun to a person that broke into your house to steal your TV that doesn't have a gun.
Or you can get trained, know the law, and act accordingly.
Quote:
A gun gives you a false sense of security to me. It makes a person move towards danger rather then away from danger.
Sounds like poor training to me. All of the training I have been to has emphasized run, hide, fight (as a last resort). If you are in your own home, you have a natural advantage of knowing the layout. You can use this to gather your family, move them to a location where they can get out of the house. If that is not possible, get them to a location in the house where they can all hide together and you act as the firewall. The last option is to use your weapon, but only if you feel there is an immediate threat to your life or that of another.
Quote:
The most powerful home defense mechanism is a safety plan and a phone. Unless you've drawn the attention of the local drug cartel, a burgler isn't going to stick around if they hear a person on the phone through a locked door for example. If your first move with a gun is towards trouble, you're actually not doing a good job of defending your family.
Completely agree. Get out, and call the cops. Let them deal with the fallout of a possible shooting. They have the law on their side more so than you do.
Quote:
Also, if someone breaks into your house and has a gun and is prepared to use it, I'm betting that the odds are significantly in their favor.
Again, I agree. If you own a gun and are not prepared to use it, then you shouldn't own a gun. They aren't toys, and they shouldn't be something you keep around just in case. The owner needs to use them regularly and needs to keep their skills sharp. Most importantly, the owner needs to be prepared to pull that trigger, and that only comes with repetition. If you aren't prepared for that, then don't buy a gun. You're likely going to be a greater risk to yourself and your neighbors than you would to the individual breaking in.
No, you clearly are not. Otherwise why try and conflate the two or introduce them together when they are completely different mechanisms with completely different purposes? If you knew the difference you were then just trying to score cheap debate points, or trying to confuse someone who doesn't understand. Since this isn't the first time I've had to correct you on the subject, I'll go with the probability that you yourself don't know either.
I really get tired of people who claim to be pro-gun but don't know #### about them or the actual laws and mechanisms used to protect one's rights to access those weapons. There are way too many like that in the NRA, and it appears there are a few of them up in the great white north as well. Get educated man, you're making responsible gun owners look ridiculous.
Would you be willing to provide clarity then?
My understanding is that the NICS system is standalone and fed from various state and federal agencies. The process is electronic and no laws prohibit the use of these electronic records to perform background checks.
The Tracing Center is used by law enforcement to tack the origins of firearms when investigating a crime and is only able to utilize the paper records kept by FFLs. The justification for this being that allowing the use of electronic data would constitute a registry of firearm and firearms owners.
If I'm wrong on any of that, I'm more than willing to learn where I'm incorrect.
I'm one of the people who believes you don't lose your rights because of the actions of criminals.
While I would happily ban all guns but a single shotgun or bolt action hunting rifle myself as I see no rational need for any person to have more than those (and little need for those either in truth) that wasn't the discussion, the discussion was about the requirement to store guns safely.
I have a right to drive a car, provided I can prove I can drive and my car is safe and I pay my tax towards maintaining the roads, requiring a burglar proof gun safe in no way takes away your right to bolster your self confidence through the possession of a very dangerous kids toy, you can buy cammo gear as well and run around the woods thinking you're a soldier all you want, cheaper if you just buy a bb gun and in the end its the same effect, you're happy everyone else thinks you're a bit of a tit.
Incidently the second amendment just gives you the right to bear arms, that in no way defines what arms you get to bear, the second amendment doesn't mention guns at all.
My understanding is that the NICS system is standalone and fed from various state and federal agencies. The process is electronic and no laws prohibit the use of these electronic records to perform background checks.
The Tracing Center is used by law enforcement to tack the origins of firearms when investigating a crime and is only able to utilize the paper records kept by FFLs. The justification for this being that allowing the use of electronic data would constitute a registry of firearm and firearms owners.
If I'm wrong on any of that, I'm more than willing to learn where I'm incorrect.
NICS is not stand and has feeds from NCIC and III databases, all of which ultimately administered through the FBI. Inquiry can now be done electronically via a dedicated web app, and without human interaction. It should also be noted that not everyone needs to go through a NICS background. Many states have exemptions for anyone that holds a CCW license/permit. That's right, I can walk into a gun store, flash my CCW, and walk out without having an inquiry done.
The Tracing Center is a completely different beast, and administered by a completely different agency. The ATF administers this process and is caught between the powerful gun lobbies and the need to maintain providence for a weapon. The NRA and their ilk payoff congress and states to make sure the 4473 forms are held by the seller (not just the FFL) and not reported back to the state in any shape or fashion. This creates an antiquated and almost impossible system to track down who owns a weapon and for how long. Because of this boondoggle, the only weapons that really are traceable in meaningful way are those that have been used in a criminal enterprise and captured in the Uniform Crime Reporting database. Beyond that, finding the providence of a weapon can take months, if it can be found at all.
The reason behind the gun lobby making sure that this information is not properly catalogued is so there is no restriction made on people buying guns, even those who are buying them in excessive quantities for obvious criminal purposes. This has nothing to do with protecting the rights and privacy of the public, this has everything to do with not stemming the flow of weapons into the hands of a minority of the country.
Someone breaks into your house to steal your stuff. If they're only after your TV or a painting or jewlery, whatever, I'm sorry, you don't have the right to execute them. Theft is not a capital crime.
I agree 100% with the bolded. That being said, I can see why some people would want a gun for protection. If I'm a single, small woman living by myself, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the guys breaking down my door are just there to steal my stuff. If I was in that position and I had a gun, I'd probably use it if they started coming after me, even if just to scare them off.
I agree 100% with the bolded. That being said, I can see why some people would want a gun for protection. If I'm a single, small woman living by myself, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether the guys breaking down my door are just there to steal my stuff. If I was in that position and I had a gun, I'd probably use it if they started coming after me, even if just to scare them off.
Which is exactly what leads to family members being shot often in the US.
A witness said two men started arguing in the store's produce section, and one pulled out a gun and shot the other. A stray bullet also hit a Walmart employee in the foot, the witness said.
No doubt. I'm not saying it's a perfect way to attempt to protect yourself, but I understand why some people would like it as an option.
Here's the thing, not only is it not perfect, it is actually not protecting you, its making you far more likely to die, its pretty much the same as buying a lion to roam the house at night in the hopes it may eat a rapist before it eats you.
As a women your best bet is a really good bedroom door with a lock and a land line, you hear someone break in you call 911 and shout through the already locked door the cops are coming, you really want to be safe put in an alarm with an area motion sensor so it's on while you sleep and set off the alarm.
The gun you buy will always be more of a threat to you in the hands of your drunken abusive husband, son or yourself if you feel suicidal than it ever will to the rapist.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Postmarked from all over the United States and Europe, they are from women, girls and grown men. Some are handwritten, others are typed. They are written on college-ruled notebook paper and in fancy greeting cards with cartoons. Some are stuffed with sexually suggestive photos of women and teens in lingerie.
There's even a handwritten note from a Girl Scout troop in New Jersey, signed by more than a dozen girls. "May God Forgive," they wrote.
All the pieces of mail appear to share one theme: They are sympathetic towards the person to whom they are addressed -- Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old who shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
The Broward County Public Defender's office, which represents Cruz, says between 100 and 200 pieces of mail have arrived at the county jail where Cruz is being held.
Longtime Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein told CNN he's never seen a defendant get so many letters, which began arriving shortly after Cruz's February 14 arrest. "Not even close," he said.
Does the younger Tsarnaev count as white? He was Caucasian, obviously, but I'm not so sure he would count the same way I don't think you'd find many racists considering Arabs "white" because they are Caucasian. The Boston Bomber has a myriad of fans, especially younger female.
In any regard, the Night Stalker received a notorious amount of fan mail from female admirers. He even married one and got engaged to another.
The surviving DC sniper receives donation on his fan-made Facebook page.
Remember the fans cheering on OJ Simpson as he was being chased by the police?
Look up hybristophilia. It's sexual attraction to criminals like rapists and murderers.
