Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Pyrrho]

As far as I can see, in America there's a significant likelyhood that a burglar will be carrying a firearm. Thus, without one yourself, it'd be fair to say that you're pretty much screwed.

In the U.K., the likelyhood of a burglar carrying a firearm is miniscule, so the general public need only be concerned about being robbed or beaten to a pulp. Yes, you maybe killed, but then that's true of the situation in America too.

Stated another way:

In America the general public is far better equipped to deal positively with a burgler than in the U.K. Unfortunately, however, the burgler in America is far better equipped to retaliate in a way that results in fatalities than in the U.K.

I for one would rather wrestle with a burgler than worry about him blowing my head off.

It is also analogous to the police in the U.K generally not having guns. They don't have them there because they don't need them there.

You could also look at the issue from the standpoint of a burglar. If you are going to enter someone's house to steal something, if you are in the U.S., you might want to consider carrying a gun in order to defend yourself against the homeowner, who may be armed. In the U.K., the homeowner probably isn't armed, and you then only need worry about being "beaten to a pulp".

One may regard the situation as being an arms race in the U.S....

 

[stratman]

You know, as nice and as "informative" this little discussion of our is, the bottom line is simple: there's nothing like the peace of mind a gun gives you, especially if you have a family to protect, if you're not proficient or feel comfortable with one then you shouldn't own one, take your risk along with those that would deny my rights, hopefully you'll never need one, but if you do, start praying or chanting. Robbie, a 200 pound man can do serious damage, not just to a woman or child but to the elderly and a smaller man, I would never assume that the person breaking into my home is a gentleman of any sort, be it in London or Miami, I always assume the person breaking in is coming to inflict death upon my family and myself, you guys that don't have children, wait till you do, I'd say a good 90% of you will look at criminals with a different perspective, especially at child molesters. How can I look my family in their eyes and tell them, "sorry about the beating, the rape, I just can't bring myself to use a gun." I'd rather kill myself.

 

[stratman]

You could also look at the issue from the standpoint of a burglar. If you are going to enter someone's house to steal something, if you are in the U.S., you might want to consider carrying a gun in order to defend yourself against the homeowner, who may be armed. In the U.K., the homeowner probably isn't armed, and you then only need worry about being "beaten to a pulp".

One may regard the situation as being an arms race in the U.S....

I live in Miami, at one time considered the most dangerous place in the US and one of the most dangerous places to live in the world. Miami has a high rate of gun ownership, the majority of the crimes are committed against the elderly and females, robberies when they do happen tend to happen during daylight, thieves have told the police what they fear most are homeowners and dogs. Homeowners, due to the fact most Miamians are protected, dogs for two obvious reasons, they call attention and some bite. To think that a burglar in the UK is coming to your home unarmed is ludicrous, now you start playing the odds game, well I never like to have the odds stacked against me. As for the "arms race," well guns whether you care for them or not, have been and continue to be part of the American culture, though many would love to see that freedom go away. As for beaten to a pulp, have any of you guys been "beaten to a pulp?" Do you know what it feels like? Would you like to see a family member being beaten to a pulp? I don't get the logic behind the reasoning.

 

[Highlander]

...look at the issue from the standpoint of a burglar. If you are going to enter someone's house to steal something, if you are in the U.S., you might want to consider carrying a gun in order to defend yourself against the homeowner, who may be armed. In the U.K., the homeowner probably isn't armed, and you then only need worry about being "beaten to a pulp".

Exactly. That's why I consider the discussion a bit pointless; both arguments tend to balance one another out.

...I would never assume that the person breaking into my home is a gentleman of any sort, be it in London or Miami, I always assume the person breaking in is coming to inflict death upon my family and myself, you guys that don't have children, wait till you do, I'd say a good 90% of you will look at criminals with a different perspective, especially at child molesters.

I agree that assuming the worst is certainly the safest way. However, whilst I've no figures to back me up here, I'd be very surprised if the majority of burglaries were about anything other than stealing gear from a persons home to pawn for cash. Rape, molestation and death are, I imagine, unlikely in the vast majority of cases (considering the U.K. here). True, you can legitimately argue that the Second Amendment gifts you the right to defend yourself and kill a burglar, but something strikes me as pretty grim when you're prepared to end the life of a person over, what at the end of the day in the majority of cases would be nothing more than petty crime.

You can always claim on the insurance for the gear that was stolen. New Home Theatre - just think!

How can I look my family in their eyes and tell them, "sorry about the beating, the rape, I just can't bring myself to use a gun." I'd rather kill myself.

Sorry Stratman but I just don't buy that argument. In essence you're saying that the overwhelming majority of folk in the U.K. are prepared to 'look their family in their eyes...' when that's simply not the case (as I'm sure you'll agree).

 

[Rickster71]

I always find it unfortunate, in discussions such as this; that people seem to focus more on the law abiding citizen with a legal gun; rather than a criminal, or criminal intent.
Or worse yet; somehow fault, responsibility, and intent are assigned to an inanimate object, a gun. Instead of to the criminal.

 

[stratman]

My experience tells me Robbie, that "robbers" here are not as "nice" as on the other side of the pond, I live in what was once the maelstrom of violence in the US and I can say from experience that many come to your home not looking for gear, that's a chance I'm not willing to gamble with, my family is my life.

 

[stratman]

I always find it unfortunate, in discussions such as this; that people seem to focus more on the law abiding citizen with a legal gun; rather than a criminal, or criminal intent.
Or worse yet; somehow fault, responsibility, and intent are assigned to an inanimate object, a gun. Instead of to the criminal.

That was going to be my next observation. Non-gun folk have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens, what they have to fear is the criminal, who will be in the street in no time after getting arrested. Thanks to the folks that say you shouldn't have guns to protect yourself, does anyone see the irony?

 

[stratman]

Read this if you're interested, it gives you a picture of what the crime is like down here. Here are some recent stats:

http://www.miamidade.gov/mdpd/Press_Releases/Crime Stats/Press_Conference_2007-Mayor.pdf

 

[Tomorrow]

I always find it unfortunate, in discussions such as this; that people seem to focus more on the law abiding citizen with a legal gun; rather than a criminal, or criminal intent.
Or worse yet; somehow fault, responsibility, and intent are assigned to an inanimate object, a gun. Instead of to the criminal.

Well said. And they also generally forget that, as Stratman said, there are little old ladies and gentlemen that have not the strength to "wrestle" with an intruder...whose intentions one cannot mind read as they break into one's house.

Crime is a fact of life...all over the world. Because this nation was founded upon the principle that it was, and was carved out of a virtual wilderness, guns have always been a part of its culture. This has been the mode of protection from crime for Americans since its inception. The anti's seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment doesn't do anything to further our freedom. I believe that it was put #2 specifically to ensure the protection of Amendment #1, Freedom of Speech, and freedom from repressive governance. (Sorry Robbie, we didn't much like taxation without representation.)

We, the anti's and the pro-gunners, actually are not too different. Anti's fear guns being used on them, so they want them banned. Pro's fear guns being used on them but want them in their possession to defend themselves. The problem with the anti's position is that it violates the Bill of Rights, ignores the fact that an armed state is unlikely to be governed in dictatorial style (would we assume benevolent leadership always Mr. Schmoe-GWB-Hater?), ignores equality of force in any conflict between criminal and law abiding citizen, and forces the anti's moral values on everyone.

The United States is vilified by many of its citizens and others for the very principles and behaviors that made this country the greatest nation in the "civilized" world....and provides more personal freedom and liberties than any country in the world. Draconian gun laws are just one example of the erosion of that freedom. Sorry boys. You can't have my guns. Ever.

 

[Halon451]

Since the archive I linked to spans back to 1958; one would think defending one's self, and family had to be 'newsworthy' at some point in time. No?

I didn't post the original story. Though the person that did is very credible, and makes sense 99.9% of the time. So no one is perfect.

You seem to be hanging your hat on the one story, that isn't true.
What about the millions that are true, and not reported?
Since there is no "liberal media conspiracy" (as you say) can you recall a story of a person defending themselves that was on the news?
I can't; though I know they exist.

Thanks Rickster - to all the naysayers out there, as mentioned in my post, it was intended only to "stir" the pot on this topic, which I see I have succeeded in doing. I didn't give the story credit one way or another - it was simply something that came into my inbox sitting here at work, so I used it as a tool to get the discussion going again - so retract your fangs gentlemen, and thank you for your opinions.

 

[Highlander]

Sorry Robbie, we didn't much like taxation without representation.

I don't suppose anybody does.

The problem with the anti's position is that it...ignores the fact that an armed state is unlikely to be governed in dictatorial style...

Eh? Televised images of Iraqis brandishing guns during the time of the late Saddam Hussein, shooting into the air immediately springs to mind.

 

[Halon451]

I have seen stories of people defending themselves on the news. However, such stories are relatively rarely on TV, as they are not usually very newsworthy. Typically, such stories will be on local news broadcasts, if they are on TV, as they tend to be local news stories rather than stories of national importance. They also don't bother putting on the news every story of someone hurting themselves (or others) with a gun, either, which they would probably want to do if they had a strong anti-gun bias. Such stories are too common and too local to generally make national headlines. Exceptions, of course, occur when a famous person is involved. For example, when the Vice President shot someone accidentally. That becomes newsworthy not because of the story in itself, but because of who was involved in it. It would also have been on the news if, instead, the Vice President had defended himself from intruders with his shotgun, again, because of who would have been involved.

Right now, one is much more likely to see a story on the Supreme Court case involving Washington, D.C., as that is a story of broader importance than what happens in one person's house. (I do not mean to trivialize what happens in one person's situation; I am only saying that it typically is not such that it is as newsworthy for others as cases involving broad laws.)

If every story of someone defending themselves or others were on the news, and if every story of a gun accident were on the news, it would not be worth watching the news, as too much of one's time would be wasted with stories that have similar recurring themes, and they would each of them individually not have much importance in the lives of most viewers. Also, many stories that people tell are fabricated, and it would take a great deal of time to research them all to find out which ones were real and which ones were exaggerated or fake. And in some cases, one would never know what really happened, as there would not be enough physical evidence to make a determination.

But, again, the bottom line is that an individual occurrence, no matter how important to the individuals involved, is typically not very newsworthy.

Agreed, and it sounds like you do realize that these types of stories are in abundance. As I've already stated, the "story" I posted was a copy and paste job from an email nothing more - I didn't bother to "research" its credibility, because even if it's entirely made up I think it represents a very real scenario that could easily take place in our society. And though such a story might not make national headlines 100% of the time, or hell - even 25% of the time, this thread, on this forum is 100% about this topic - so one definitive side can continue throwing rocks while the other side....reloads.

So there.

 

[Halon451]

Exactly. That's why I consider the discussion a bit pointless; both arguments tend to balance one another out.



I agree that assuming the worst is certainly the safest way. However, whilst I've no figures to back me up here, I'd be very surprised if the majority of burglaries were about anything other than stealing gear from a persons home to pawn for cash. Rape, molestation and death are, I imagine, unlikely in the vast majority of cases (considering the U.K. here). True, you can legitimately argue that the Second Amendment gifts you the right to defend yourself and kill a burglar, but something strikes me as pretty grim when you're prepared to end the life of a person over, what at the end of the day in the majority of cases would be nothing more than petty crime.

You can always claim on the insurance for the gear that was stolen. New Home Theatre - just think!



Sorry Stratman but I just don't buy that argument. In essence you're saying that the overwhelming majority of folk in the U.K. are prepared to 'look their family in their eyes...' when that's simply not the case (as I'm sure you'll agree).

Hi Robbie - good post, and I know Strat touched on this, but it seems as if crime in the UK is maybe a bit tame compared to some of the situations that have taken place here. Granted there are sickos in all corners of the world (and in the UK), but here they seem to be multiplying at an out of control rate (maybe something in the water...)

I recall another story (this one was on the news mind you due to the sheer horror of it - a group of young men break into a home while a mother and her son are there. The woman is forced to perform sexual acts on her own son, while the intruders are laughing and giving each other high-fives. To me that is absolutely heart-stopping - even in this day and age, that I can still be so shocked even as de-sensitized as I've become to crime.

Now, it's obviously debatable whether or not having a gun in the house at the time would have prevented such an incident - one can argue that you would either have three dead intruders are a dead mother and son.

Either way, the point being - this is what comes to mind immediately (having seen it and heard about it) when that glass window breaks in the middle of the night and you know someone is entering your home. And believe me, the intruder who breaks into my home is only going to get shot as many times as I have bullets, no more.

 

[stratman]

Eh? Televised images of Iraqis brandishing guns during the time of the late Saddam Hussein, shooting into the air immediately springs to mind.

Robbie,

During Saddam's reign only those loyal to the Baath party (Saddam) were allowed to carry arms, those staged-for-the-press jubilees were comprised of Saddam's men wearing "civilian" garb, shooting the ubiquitous AK into the air, to show the gullible world press how much the people loved their "godfather." The everyday Iraqi was not allowed that freedom.

 

[Tomorrow]

Eh? Televised images of Iraqis brandishing guns during the time of the late Saddam Hussein, shooting into the air immediately springs to mind.

You have to think about this just a tad, Robbie. Dictators are afraid of an armed general population. But they do require armed "enablers" to keep them safely in dictatorial power. Stratman is right on the mark.

 

[stratman]

You have to think about this just a tad, Robbie. Dictators are afraid of an armed general population. But they do require armed "enablers" to keep them safely in dictatorial power. Stratman is right on the mark.

I was speaking to my mom's neighbor yesterday, funny you mentioned enablers, I had asked her what it was like when Castro had those Hitlerian-like rallies, how come the Cuban populace showed up in such numbers, her reply, amazingly resembles what Saddam would do, she said state security would dress up civilian, go to the factories, jobs, etc, order the work to cease, they would bring in buses and you were compelled to go to the rally. Once the speech-spouting Castro started his venting against us "capitalist pigs," security forces would be in the throngs taking notice of who wasn't acting jubilant and "revolutionary," after the rallies, which at times would go on for half a day, those under scrutiny would be "interrogated," she said her husband (who eventually died in one of Castro's jail) would feign sickness, or heat stroke anything not to be black-listed (at best) or worse be beaten to a "pulp," in many cases if you didn't show up for work and there was a rally you would be reported and later state security would show up at your house asking questions.

Wow, and we still have people that complain about the Patriot Act, police intervention, and "lack" of rights right here, while Castro is portrayed a hero of the people and those same idiots (Sean Penn, Ed Asner, Ted Turner) go out of their way to idolize and lick their boots. You know maybe what we need is a Castro or Stalin in this country so some people will finally wake up and smell the coffee, it so easy to complain about the lack of rights, especially when yours haven't been compromised. Let's see, when was the last time anyone here was compelled to go to a political rally? At the pain of a beating?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

"Use guns to save their lives" is a far, far cry from "fire a gun to save their lives" or "kill to save their lives."

Good point. I don't see the need to actually shoot someone when simply aiming the gun at them and yelling "hands up!" can be as effective. If they refuse to obey, then it is time to shoot.

 

[Pyrrho]

That was going to be my next observation. Non-gun folk have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens [emphasis added], what they have to fear is the criminal, who will be in the street in no time after getting arrested. Thanks to the folks that say you shouldn't have guns to protect yourself, does anyone see the irony?

It is not quite true that people only have to fear criminals. Too many "law abiding" citizens are careless about the storage of their guns, and children end up dead because of it. The simple fact is, morons as well as geniuses are allowed to buy guns in the U.S., and this is a matter of legitimate concern.

 

[Rickster71]

The simple fact is, morons as well as geniuses are allowed to buy guns in the U.S., and this is a matter of legitimate concern.

Morons are allowed to do many things.
They reproduce, they drive cars, they don't supervise their children playing around swimming pools.
So, I think you're correct, we should outlaw morons.

 

[Rickster71]

Pools more dangerous than guns for children. (see links below)
Also buckets more dangerous to small children than guns.

I suppose if we use the convoluted logic of some, we should ban swimming pools, and buckets, and many other inanimate objects.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/specialreports/79388.php

http://timlambert.org/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns/

http://wacki.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/buckets-more-dangerous-to-children-than-guns/