[Mars]

Yeah... eventually... lol... when I first got home after that.. I wanted to call the police... and my mother actually said "Don't call the police... the house is to dirty." but yes... I did get it reported.

I think the major way that the United States can be a safer place is by having school children learn to memorize licence plates.

I do have my doubts about how effective gun control would be, but I think that if the United State's governments were to effectively enforce their current laws it could be easier to assess.

[TrashMan]

False sense of security my ass, right now I'm scared to leave my ****ing house... I was in front of a friends house when this happened, in plain daylight. It could happen to me... hell to anybody at any time, and it might not be a threat, the ****er could actually shoot the damn thing. If I have the ability to make the ***** either die before he can kill me, or pay for my life with his, then my sense of security is not false.

It is false...your enhanced ability to kill (becosue of a gun) doesn't make you any less likely to die or any less resistant to physical harm.

It does increase the chance that the other guy WILL fire a gun (becouse he will think he is in danger). But granted, if you're lucky you can take him with you (maby even survive) but that doens't make you or any other casualty of that firefight any less dead.

[karajorma]

Not to mention that we all know that gangs exercise restraint if you kill one of their members. You can sleep easily in your bed knowing that no one will ever come after you for revenge.

[LOA--JK47]

That.......Is utter tosh. You ever been to brixton?

[karajorma]

The sarchasm claims another victim.

[LOA--JK47]

^

The sarchasm claims another victim.

Oh yes it does

[Polpolion]

Yeah... eventually... lol... when I first got home after that.. I wanted to call the police... and my mother actually said "Don't call the police... the house is to dirty." but yes... I did get it reported.

Thats the kind of thing my mom would have said.

[Mika]

I actually stand by Americans here. Home is a place where you can be safe and relaxed. No-one is allowed to break-in, even when you are not there. And even more so, when you are actually at home, then by law (here) you are allowed to defend it. It is the bugger who actually gave up his rights by forcefully entering your home. And he might be armed so it is either you or him. I personally think that this is something where you don't run away. It might not be even possible, if living in a block of flats.

Criminals are not stopped by running away from them, or letting them get away. I don't even understand how we have ended up with that. Criminals don't think like that. For part of the criminals, it is only the show of force that will teach them, if even that. The current prison system is too forgiving, if you ask me. If they want to get their civil rights back, they have to earn them by hard work - to the point that the rest of the people can actually think the bugger has indeed regained his rights and his crimes are forgiven.

The integrity of the society depends on the people living in it. Criminal activities are something which cannot be tolerated at all. Not even if your friend or family member does that. If you let them get away with it, do you think they will stop it before someone corrects the situation?

By the way, I have never heard of someone actually mistaking family member to a criminal. But I have heard of 12-years-old boys using live ammunition with hunting rifles and shotguns when playing their own mock-up war games. The people of that generation cannot be described as merciful towards criminals, and took part in "citizen activites" much more often than people nowadays. For Americans, it would equal to Tar & Feathers. Type of angry mob justice, basically.

But regarding the situation where someone is actually pointing you with a gun, it is far too late for anything but to hope for the best and give up the wallet. There might be something what you could do afterwards. Like calling the police, for example.

I've been thinking about carrying concealed and carrying the gun visibly, I would go with carrying gun visibly (cannot carry gun here legally unless going to shooting range or hunting, but US is different in this matter). It works better as a deterrent. But this on the assumption you know when to use the gun and when not to. And how to carry the gun also.

It is true that preventative measures are important. I think you did the right thing when you told the police about that incident, Mars. Next time be faster and they might catch them red-handed. Close to home no-one should be afraid of being mugged.

Mika

[Fineus]

Hey Mars, a few people rightly pointed out that you were no doubt shaken up after your experience. Therefore sorry if I came off harshly in my last post here and thank you for not taking it the wrong way. I need to pay more attention to context

And...

I actually stand by Americans here. Home is a place where you can be safe and relaxed. No-one is allowed to break-in, even when you are not there. And even more so, when you are actually at home, then by law (here) you are allowed to defend it. It is the bugger who actually gave up his rights by forcefully entering your home. And he might be armed so it is either you or him. I personally think that this is something where you don't run away. It might not be even possible, if living in a block of flats.

I actually agree with this. It makes me think of a case some time ago where a robber broke into a farm house via the kitchen sky light and fell onto a knife on a kitchen surface - cutting himself. He successfully sued the owners of the house for damages as a result of his injuries, despite the circumstances behind it all. Insanity - if you ask me.

That said I do think it's a dangerous idea, giving the owner of a home a gun. Not with respect of defending yourself from criminals but - although we're all no doubt reasonable people - can we garuntee that every person out there is? I know I know some people out there that I'd really hate to see in possession of a gun, even if it was just for "home defense". The possibility that something might happen one day - perhaps a drunken argument - leading to a shooting is just too easy when you allow such easy access to fire-arms.

It's a catch 22. You could arm everyone and hope they all stay reasonable and nice to eachother and that nothing goes awry. Or you take away that right to self defense - unfortunately the "criminals have guns, so why shouldn't I? fair is fair" argument does hold some water.

[achtung]

This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.

I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns.  Maybe banning pistols?  I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed.  Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case.  They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.

I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles.  I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them.  I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose.  There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.

[WeatherOp]

This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.

I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns.  Maybe banning pistols?  I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed.  Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case.  They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.

I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles.  I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them.  I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose.  There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.

The only problem with that is most rifles and shotguns are cumbersome and take a sec to load, so if someone breaks in your house you better be good at grabbing it and loading it, or keep it loaded at all times.

And secondly, only you are a good shot, a guy with a pistol could kill you. He's got a semi-auto and a 9-10 clip mag, where you have 1 or 2 shots to get him, that is unless you have a auto-shotgun or something.

[achtung]

This thread makes me think of that song Saturday Night Special by Lynard Skynard.

I really don't think there is a full-proof fix for guns.  Maybe banning pistols?  I mean, it's a hell of a lot harder to carry a rifle onto a school campus and not be noticed.  Then when it comes to home defense, the owner doesn't need a pistol, a rifle would do just fine if not better in that case.  They are much more accurate and, in my own experience, safer than handguns.

I've never really used anything beyond shotguns and rifles.  I mean, I've shot plenty of pistols and own some myself, but I've never "taken a liking" to them.  I find them innacurate, dangerous, and easy to lose.  There is no real use for a pistol in civilian hands for hunting or any other application other than murder or intimidation.

The only problem with that is most rifles and shotguns are cumbersome and take a sec to load, so if someone breaks in your house you better be good at grabbing it and loading it, or keep it loaded at all times.

And secondly, only you are a good shot, a guy with a pistol could kill you. He's got a semi-auto and a 9-10 clip mag, where you have 1 or 2 shots to get him, that is unless you have a auto-shotgun or something.

I was thinking semi-auto rifle myself.  Or pump shotgun.  Whatever floats your boat.    I don't have many breech loaders.

[BrotherBryon]

I'll admit gun control laws need some serious revamping here in the states but to eliminate them would never work. They're just too ingrained in our culture. Proper education and stiffer penalties for the misuse of firearms can help significantly but the big issue is availability. Some states such as my home state of Virginia have lax laws for the purchase of firearms. Any one can purchase a handgun from one of many gun shows that circulate around the state with little to no screening. While the right to bare arms should not be taken away it should be regulated better. All gun owners should be properly trained and schooled to operate and store firearms safely. Making this a requirement for ownership could curb the number of accidental and just plain dumb shootings that occur so often each year. But even stiffer laws will have little effect on the misuse of illegal and unregistered firearms. I'm not even sure if stronger penalties on the possession of illegal firearms would be enough to counter the thug and Hollywood cultures plaguing our cities.

To be honest I don't really understand why the market for hand guns is so high when the handgun is horribly inaccurate beyond close range and it's only real advantages is portability and concealment. Of all the weapons I had to qualify on when I served in the military the pistol was the hardest to learn to use effectively. A short barreled shot gun would be far more effective for the home security argument just for the intimidation factor alone. It's far more accurate and it's stopping power is significantly greater than any but the highest caliber pistols. I guess the only really effective way to reduce the market on handguns would be for the Government to impose limitations on the number of handguns that manufactures can produce for the civilian market. This of course will cause the price of handguns to shoot up.

[achtung]

it's only real advantages is portability and concealment

that's why they're so popular.

[Agent_Koopa]

I have always felt that the American people should have the rights given in the constitution and no more, in other words, if they are in a well-ordered militia (the stated reason for the right to bear arms), they can carry the weapons that were available when that right was given.  In other words they would be allowed to carry muzzle loading, smoothbore, flintlock and and matchlock weapons only.

That would be awesome! Would they get wheellocks too? Just think about it! You're walking down the street, and some punk pulls a flintlock on you. You smile and whip out the matchlock you've been keeping under your now-ruined coat, and place a round in the guy a couple of feet to his left. He does the same and runs!

[Mongoose]

While the right to bare arms should not be taken away it should be regulated better.

Oh, I fully agree.  Some people have no business at all wearing short sleeves.

*slinks away slowly*

[BrotherBryon]

Damn I do have a tendency to misplace words and some one always picks up on it. But at least they are always funny 

[Mefustae]

I actually agree with this. It makes me think of a case some time ago where a robber broke into a farm house via the kitchen sky light and fell onto a knife on a kitchen surface - cutting himself. He successfully sued the owners of the house for damages as a result of his injuries, despite the circumstances behind it all. Insanity - if you ask me.

That's just an urban legend.

[jr2]

Hehe,... watch

[karajorma]

That's just an urban legend.

and even if it wasn't you could simply turn around and counter-sue him for twice as much claiming that his claim amounted to harassment and the sheer stupidity of it caused you mental anguish.

Even if you could find 12 morons who'd have given him money for burgling you you'd find it very hard to find another 12 people stupid enough not to let you win the money back no matter how bogus the suit was once they heard how ridiculous the original claim was.