The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 38    Average: 3.9/5]
168 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 9873
Rating: 3.9
Category:
Date: 02/20/09 06:37 AM

168 Responses to Homeowner Saved By `Make My Day` Law

  1. Profile photo of ne028
    ne028 Male 18-29
    889 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:19 am
    Link: Homeowner Saved By `Make My Day` Law - Moral of the story: If you`re drunk, make sure the house you`re breaking into is yours.
  2. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:32 am
    HELL YES!

    There`s no goddamn reason for the Homeowner to be Prosecuted at all, he was defending his property.

  3. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:34 am
    Sad. But you get tragedy like that when you let all sorts of people own guns and give them the right to shoot. You guys have a great bill of rights, and they`re very important.. but this right to arms? That was one that may have been necessary at one point, but should not be in there today.
  4. Profile photo of quack_stud
    quack_stud Male 13-17
    439 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:37 am
    I wish they had that law here because then I could shoot all of the damn sales people that come here.
  5. Profile photo of riotDX
    riotDX Male 18-29
    600 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:37 am
    anybody know if SC has a law to that effect? If not I`m moving to Colorado...
  6. Profile photo of nicalobe
    nicalobe Male 18-29
    119 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:40 am
    The drunk guy broke the window trying to get into the house... Anyone here who says they wouldn`t have been scared pooless is a bold-faced liar.
  7. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:41 am
    Now im thinking about it. In the UK if someone breaks into your house and accidentally hurts himself. You as the home owner are liable for their injury and can be sued as such. So really, UK and US seem to me both wrong on this and both polar extreems.
  8. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:50 am
    Sarah, think about this, *if* George Bush had decided to become a Dictator, all of the Armed Citizens of the United States would be the Worlds First line of Defense against such a potentially horrible Tyrant.
  9. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:50 am
    An Armed man is a Citizen, an Unarmed Man is a Subject.
  10. Profile photo of jimbobsthebe
    jimbobsthebe Male 18-29
    639 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:51 am
    F-huck that. Surely you shouldn`t be allowed to shot and kill someone for entering your home.
  11. Profile photo of atlacatl
    atlacatl Male 18-29
    342 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:52 am
    Yea... he totally had it coming

    and Sarah, you can`t separate a free man from his arms, otherwise he is not free.

  12. Profile photo of s0rd3dvis1on
    s0rd3dvis1on Male 18-29
    2388 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:59 am
    make my day law is that a fuc*ing joke. :S
  13. Profile photo of huck08
    huck08 Male 18-29
    426 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 7:59 am
    break into my house, prepare to get dead.
  14. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:05 am
    "HELL YES!

    There`s no goddamn reason for the Homeowner to be Prosecuted at all, he was defending his property."

    perfect example of the American stereotype...

    The same sort of thing happened here in the UK. A farmer with an illegal gun killed a burgler and got life (he appealled on the grounds of a mental disorder and got 8 years).

  15. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:10 am
    SarahJ:
    That`s not true in the UK. It`s a mixup of a law which says you are not allowed to set a trap for an intruder.

    However, bear in mind that when you legalize guns, you practically automatically give the death penalty for theft in effect.

    Still if you`re going to stand by shooting people because they "pose a threat", then this is perfectly reasonable.

  16. Profile photo of icantthink41
    icantthink41 Male 18-29
    350 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:11 am
    Everyone who thinks that law is stupid, isnt thinking at all. If someone is trying to break into your house, you definitely should have the right to defend yourself and your belongings.
  17. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:12 am
    Atlacatl:

    And you can`t separate a free man from his dogmatic hand-me-down catchphrases or he is not free.

  18. Profile photo of starfl4ke
    starfl4ke Female 18-29
    349 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:18 am
    I`m from the UK, can someone clarify this for me? In the USA, are you allowed to shoot someone who enters your property?
  19. Profile photo of TGPZarquon
    TGPZarquon Male 30-39
    166 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:22 am
    I had this argument once at a bar with a rather pretty but dim-witted defense lawyer. There is absolutely no excuse for breaking into another person`s home. For all in Europe who think this law is insane, what are you going to say? "Please don`t rape me/ my wife or daughter, please don`t take all the things I`ve worked for, please don`t kill me?" The idea that you can`t defend yourself in your own home is insane.
  20. Profile photo of keatonatron
    keatonatron Male 18-29
    679 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:24 am
    "I`m from the UK, can someone clarify this for me? In the USA, are you allowed to shoot someone who enters your property?"

    If they just enter your property, no. If they force their way into your home and you feel you are in danger, in most cases you won`t be charged for taking defensive actions. Although, in most states, you still have to go to court and prove that you were defending yourself and it was a matter of life and death.

  21. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:30 am
    In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t.
  22. Profile photo of starfl4ke
    starfl4ke Female 18-29
    349 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:30 am
    Thank you keatonatron. Sounds like a fair law to me.
  23. Profile photo of JGESS
    JGESS Male 18-29
    433 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:33 am
    and its usually frowned upon when the victim is shot in the back... cant really say its self defence in that instance
  24. Profile photo of a1butcher
    a1butcher Male 40-49
    4809 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:36 am
    There was a home invasion robbery in Canada not to long ago and the home owner stabbed one to death and the other close to death. He was charged for murder cause he chased one off the property and stabby stab stab.
    We don`t need no stinking guns when a butcher knife will do. LOL
  25. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:38 am
    "In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t."

    So you`d rather let them break in and do whatever happy things they have planned for you?

  26. Profile photo of AznFriday
    AznFriday Male 18-29
    35 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:40 am
    Wow, if I did this, I don`t think that I could easily live with killing a man.
  27. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:42 am
    I`d rather neither of us had guns than both of us.

    If you own a gun it is 28 times more likely to be used on you or your family than an intruder. You put your family at more risk by owning one than by not owning one.

  28. Profile photo of White_Wolfos
    White_Wolfos Female 18-29
    1143 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:43 am
    Wow. A block away?
    How`d a guy that drunk get outta the bar parking lot? Surprised he even found the right car...

    So, yeah, uhm... who breaks into their own house? :|
    Seriously?
    The homeowner had every right to defend himself. I mean, he was expecting the worst. Most would in that situation.

    I`d like to say I would`ve waited for the police, but... you never really know `til yer in the moment. o___o

  29. Profile photo of AGit
    AGit Male 30-39
    995 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:44 am
    "Sarah, think about this, *if* George Bush had decided to become a Dictator, all of the Armed Citizens of the United States would be the Worlds First line of Defense against such a potentially horrible Tyrant."

    I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that. And it`s a pretty lame reason.
    I can see no justification for this, if the guy was drunk I don`t think he posed much of a threat and possibly aiming at him without shooting would have sobered him up. To consider your TV and PS3 more important than a human life is pathetic and sad.

  30. Profile photo of Ajikan
    Ajikan Male 18-29
    1526 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:46 am
    good law, to bad you aren`t allowed to protect yourself in most of europe.
  31. Profile photo of PierreJeanFR
    PierreJeanFR Male 40-49
    1360 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:48 am
    WHAT A STUPID AND DANGEROUS LAW, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A MAILMAN IN THIS AERA.
    I PULLED THE TRIGGER AND NOW IS DEAD...
    SO EASY
  32. Profile photo of Blakcat71388
    Blakcat71388 Female 18-29
    876 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:51 am
    Yes, because every American should have a gun.
  33. Profile photo of idontknow951
    idontknow951 Male 18-29
    908 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:54 am
    "How`d a guy that drunk get outta the bar parking lot? Surprised he even found the right car..."

    Exactly what I was thinking...

  34. Profile photo of Torizo
    Torizo Male 18-29
    316 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:56 am
    I don`t own a gun but my house is filled with hundreds of deadly snakes. Would that count under the same law if I throw a bag of snakes on him?

    I keep some of my snakes in bags for awhile and they goto sleep. You might have seen a snake handler with the same sort of bags.

  35. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:57 am
    "WHAT A STUPID AND DANGEROUS LAW, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE A MAILMAN IN THIS AERA.
    I PULLED THE TRIGGER AND NOW IS DEAD...
    SO EASY"

    LOL ya except the law wouldn`t cover that and youd be cherged with murder.

  36. Profile photo of deltaumarcus
    deltaumarcus Male 18-29
    1958 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:07 am
    To quote Charlton Heston "You can have my guns when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

    A man broke into his house, he felt his family might have been in danger, and he acted. It sucks a person died yeah, but he was doing the right thing.

  37. Profile photo of nicalobe
    nicalobe Male 18-29
    119 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:14 am
    Haha! Torizo, that post is full of large amounts of win.
  38. Profile photo of hi2pi
    hi2pi Male 30-39
    736 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:16 am
    Charges can`t even be filed? I say. Kind of a black & white way of running things, isn`t it?
  39. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:23 am
    ""In theory this law would work well. However, combining it with legal guns doesn`t."

    So you`d rather let them break in and do whatever happy things they have planned for you?"

    No, I`m saying that you should be able to force someone from your home without worrying about going to jail.

    Would you agree that giving burglary the death penalty is extreme? Because if someone has a gun they will defend themselves with it, and guns are *designed* to kill.

  40. Profile photo of gozirra
    gozirra Male 40-49
    375 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:23 am
    I know when I go home, I always break the glass in my back door to get in.
  41. Profile photo of donthaveone
    donthaveone Male 30-39
    953 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:34 am
    To all you sympathetic asšholes who thinks it`s wrong to kill someone who breaks into your house I suggest you read more stories like this one before commenting.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,2904...

    you`d think twice before posting if you knew what really happen to these kids and what this father has to live with everyday of his life now. So G.F.Y.

  42. Profile photo of dunkae
    dunkae Male 30-39
    6 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:47 am
    I think the law is sound. You should have the right to defend your life (family). Problem with this situation is that he didnt even attempt to warn the guy. How about yell at him or something? How about wound him? Shoot him in the chest!!? Personally I think the shooter was a little b%^tch! That guy should still be alive!
  43. Profile photo of Zerocyde
    Zerocyde Male 18-29
    3256 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:49 am
    That sucks, but at least I know I`ll never get shot in a situation like this. Call me square all you want, at least I know which house is mine 24/7/365! :P
  44. Profile photo of rodrigorenzo
    rodrigorenzo Male 18-29
    355 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:52 am
    Learn a lesson, dont drink, ever.
  45. Profile photo of kairobert
    kairobert Male 18-29
    1623 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:59 am
    "I think the law is sound. You should have the right to defend your life (family)."

    (Personal possessions and primal territory)

  46. Profile photo of je_scream
    je_scream Female 18-29
    761 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:03 am
    Well, ya see, this is why I don`t drink.
  47. Profile photo of idontknow951
    idontknow951 Male 18-29
    908 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:03 am
    I agree with the law. You have many home invasions, but you can`t stop them because you aren`t allowed to kill or incapacitate the other person(s).
  48. Profile photo of stunman
    stunman Male 18-29
    16 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:04 am
    This wouldn`t have even made the news in Texas.
  49. Profile photo of lmaonaise
    lmaonaise Male 13-17
    773 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:06 am
    was it really necessary to even try and kill him? just blow away his kneecaps or something, everybody wins...
  50. Profile photo of MechBFP
    MechBFP Male 18-29
    813 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:09 am
    lmaonaise, if you knew ANYTHING at all about firearms, you would know how utterly drating stupid you just sounded.
  51. Profile photo of marencolleen
    marencolleen Female 18-29
    531 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:19 am
    baalthazag, i would like to see your scientific proof that owning a gun makes you 28 times more likely to be killed by it.
  52. Profile photo of router52000
    router52000 Male 18-29
    613 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:19 am
    how did the home owner even know the guy wasent an intruder they had every right to defend themselves as written in the constitution
  53. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:28 am
    It`s sad that the guy died for something as silly as that, but the homeowner`s should be allowed the chance to protect themselves. They had no way of knowing his intentions.
  54. Profile photo of hknuddv
    hknuddv Male 13-17
    72 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:30 am
    Four words america:

    THE CONSTITUTION IS WRONG

  55. Profile photo of BlackDragonB
    BlackDragonB Male 18-29
    69 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:39 am
    WTF, the "MAKE MY DAY" law?
    Is it really called that?
    Sounds like some movie or something
  56. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:39 am
    "I can see no justification for this, if the guy was drunk I don`t think he posed much of a threat and possibly aiming at him without shooting would have sobered him up. To consider your TV and PS3 more important than a human life is pathetic and sad."

    Has your life always been full of sunshine and flowers? Have you never been mugged, jumped, robbed at knifepoint, gunpoint, or otherwise harmed by others? I have. All of the above. And I`ll be damned if I`ll allow anyone to even threaten my family. It`s not about the stupid T.V. it`s about my Wife and child.

    And while it`s somewhat tragic that this man died over such a stupid mistake, the homeowner was doing what he thought best at the time. If I felt you were a threat to my child I`d have done the same.

    And let be clear, when I say it was a mistake I`m not talking about the homeowners decision. I`m talking about that jerks decision to get so drunk he couldn`t think straight.

  57. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:41 am
    Four words Hknuddy:

    You are a child.

  58. Profile photo of PSU840
    PSU840 Male 18-29
    78 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:44 am
    what keegan said
  59. Profile photo of ne028
    ne028 Male 18-29
    889 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:44 am
    Well to all those people saying owning a gun is bad you clearly never had someone break into your house..

    2 summers ago MY home was broken into while i was inside..i had my headphones on and didnt even hear the bastard bulldoze the door down..

    i live in a 2 family house so thankfully i locked my door that day but the lady upstairs NEVER locks her door so he just waltzed right in...when he saw her he got spooked and ran off

    when we filed the police report she described him being a 6 foot 250 pound guy...shes 5`3 110 and im 6`1 160...

    now say what you want but the odds of me or her overpowering a 250 lb guy are slim to none even with the knife i had in my hand.

    Thinking back i kinda wish i did have a gun.

  60. Profile photo of mikallang
    mikallang Male 18-29
    611 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:46 am
    marencolleen:
    "baalthazag, i would like to see your scientific proof that owning a gun makes you 28 times more likely to be killed by it."

    it`s not likely to happen. he does this a lot. makes claims, throws out a number and expects people to accept it as absolute truth.

    about the post. i can neither agree nor disagree with the mans actions. but its hard to find fault in his response due to the many things that might go through a persons head in that situation. fear and anger being the two most prominent. a simple "on the ground or i`ll blow your phuckin head off" might have sufficed, but hes probably also thinking about the people he feels he has to protect. think about this as well, the police were taking forever. that guy was breaking glass and coming in while they were supposed to be on their way. there are so many angles to look at this from. i just think it all boils down to one guy having to make a decision to do what he thought was best for his family

  61. Profile photo of zazuch
    zazuch Male 18-29
    286 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:49 am
    ohio just passed a law similar to this called the "castle law" or something like that and it says that if anyone breaks into your home they have already show negative intentions to you and becuase of the fact that you don`t know what the plan on doing rather it be just rob and tie your family up or kill everyone then rob the house that you have the right to shoot to kill.

    Now i dont know how they handle shooting people in the back(i think that is allowed as long as they are not leaving) manily becasue it may not be easy to get to the front of the attacker but if he is leaving it is still illegal to shoot them but any other time your allowed to.

    and i fully agree to this. If you break in my home while i am there you better prepare for a fight. i personally don`t own a home yet(live with my brother till i get out of college) but i plan on owning some sort of weapon when i get my own place.

  62. Profile photo of zazuch
    zazuch Male 18-29
    286 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:52 am
    (cont. due to character limit) as to the people who say you are more likely to have the weapon used on you or on your family that doesn`t happen if you take proper care of the weapon. or when you have kids who shoot each other that happens when the parents instead of teaching kids about weapons. I was raised in a house full of guns but my dad properly taught me about them and i never NEVER played with them and i always kept my friends away from them unless i was with them and my dad and we where doing some target shooting in our back yard. The problem is you have parents who just try to hide the gun from their kids and not properly train the kids on the proper use of guns.
  63. Profile photo of hknuddv
    hknuddv Male 13-17
    72 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:52 am
    owning a gun only makes the people breaking in want a gun themselves.

    oh yeah i have had someone break into my house, they set fire to it, i didn`t need a gun because by using the wonderful service known as the police he got sent down for 15 years. no guns needed.

    if guns were made available in the u.k. all criminals would have one, thus making the number of deaths from firearms rise from 600 a year to 11000 (u.s. figure)

    ban guns and no-one gets shot its simple logic. :)

  64. Profile photo of duffytoler
    duffytoler Male 40-49
    5195 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:53 am
    This is a good law. That a-hole probably breaks into a LOT of houses when he`s drunk and pretending to "have the wrong house".
  65. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:53 am
    About the right to bear arms. Let me first say that I agree with some of you on one point: We would be better of if guns did not exist at all, if no one could get them.

    However, we don`t live in that world. So you want to make a law banning guns? Great! Just one problem... Criminals aren`t well known for obeying laws. That`s kinda what makes them criminals. So in the world you want to create only police and criminals have the ability to defend themselves.

    That`d be fine if the police were gods both, omniscient and omnipresent. They aren`t.

    Remember that college shooting awhile back. One lone gunman killed how many students? Imagine if just one of those students in the first classroom he entered had been armed.

  66. Profile photo of Nidonemo
    Nidonemo Male 18-29
    9308 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:58 am
    Did anyone notice the American flag images waving in the back?

    `mericuh! `mericuh! Remindin` ya where ya liiiiive! Ungh! Jus` incase yuh forget.

  67. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:00 am
    It depends who you ask, however, as an example:
    12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
    17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
    789 accidental shootings (2.5%)
    330 from legal intervention <-- This is the stat you`re interested in. (1.2%)
    221 from undetermined intent

    Notice the number of legal interventions? The 28 times includes the odds of someone using the firearm to commit suicide, which admittedly only goes up by x3 so you can argue they would have killed themselves anyway, but the odds of that is just a ~30% chance of being true.

    If you want a gauge of the true risk they pose, you can do it with suicide stats, increase with firearms, then combine it with accidental shootings, but there is no data on gun related family homicides that I know of.

  68. Profile photo of hknuddv
    hknuddv Male 13-17
    72 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:02 am
    ahem retards, look at how many people get shot in the u.k. every year in countries without public access to guns compared to the u.s. figures.

    even if they were scaled up the figures would be 10 times lower.

    you cant get shot if people cant get guns.

    of course there will still be some cases because bad people still exist.

    ban guns.
    start addressing the causes of crime, (drugs, poverty, unemployment to name a few).

    oh and free healthcare for all while you`re at it.

  69. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:02 am
    About the right to bear arms. Let me first say that I agree with some of you on one point: We would be better of if guns did not exist at all, if no one could get them.

    However, we don`t live in that world. So you want to make a law banning guns? Great! Just one problem... Criminals aren`t well known for obeying laws. That`s kinda what makes them criminals. So in the world you want to create only police and criminals have the ability to defend themselves.

    That`d be fine if the police were gods both, omniscient and omnipresent. They aren`t.

    Remember that college shooting awhile back. One lone gunman killed how many students? Imagine if just one of those students in the first classroom he entered had been armed.

  70. Profile photo of hknuddv
    hknuddv Male 13-17
    72 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:05 am
    @ keegan31:

    so what you`re saying is all we need to do to stop school shootings is give everyone in the school a firearm for defence.

    way to go retard

  71. Profile photo of Painter13
    Painter13 Male 40-49
    1366 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:07 am
    He got the ultimate roostertail, two shots, straight up..no chaser.
  72. Profile photo of Painter13
    Painter13 Male 40-49
    1366 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:09 am
    He got the ultimate [email protected], two shots, straight up, no chaser.
  73. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:13 am
    Where did I say everyone should have a gun? I never really got specific about how I think guns should be regulated.

    Like most intelligent Adults, I realize that the real answer rarely lies in doing the extreme. A complete ban on guns is an extreme and will not work, for the reasons I wrote earlier. Complete lack of regulation is another extreme an would also not work.

  74. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:14 am
    So if you have a gun in your house then you`ll be fine? Well what if the guy coming in your home has a gun too?

    Here in England we have a big problem with knife crime. Kids are carrying them because they make them feel safe but they then are more likely to kill someone else accidentally. If guns were easier to get then it would be the same but with guns, a lot worse.

  75. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:18 am
    "Remember that college shooting awhile back. One lone gunman killed how many students? Imagine if just one of those students in the first classroom he entered had been armed."

    And imagine if that one student decided one day, just like the gunman, that he wanted to kill everyone in his school... Thats why many schools in America have metal detectors, he wouldn`t be allowed it anyway.

  76. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:18 am
    Mikallang: I usually do post links. Usually that`s what I`m criticized for. The fact of the matter is including a link takes up a lot of char count, so sometimes I don`t, or I include it in the next post.


    "Here comes Baal with his stats and his wikipedia articles" - Trix
    "He`s probably building a pie chart right now" -NE026
    "Waits for Baal and his stats" - Primetime (yeah that wasn`t a criticism).

    Wikipedia agrees with my previous post:
    Gun Control.
    Check the stats section. You can use the archive machine to view the CNN link, or you can go get the CDC report from the CDC directly.

    You can do it while lapping up the last few drops from my 17" penis [Citation needed">. :P

  77. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:32 am
    "So if you have a gun in your house then you`ll be fine?"

    Of course not. There are no guarantees in life and arguing in extremes and absolutes is a waste of any intelligent persons time.
    Owning a gun does not make you safe from criminals, it simply improves your odds against them. Knowing how to properly operate, maintain and lock away your guns improves your odds even more.

    "Well what if the guy coming in your home has a gun too?"

    Exactly my point, a law banning guns does nothing to prevent this as criminals don`t obey laws. I lone gunman entering you home can do whatever he wants to you, your wife and your child. You have no means of opposing him.

  78. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:39 am
    @ Baalthazaq: You seem to be a well-reasoned individual... Do you really believe that statistics are the end all, be all of any argument? Statistics can be set up to show whatever you want, they can be spun to prove whatever point you like. And studies show that most studies show whatever the people making that study want them to show.

    The problem with statistics is that they only show a snapshot, a small set of numbers only revealing the portion of the issue the statistician wanted you to see.

  79. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:41 am
    "And imagine if that one student decided one day, just like the gunman, that he wanted to kill everyone in his school..."

    only to be taken down by the two other gun-toting students, moments after he began to open fire.

  80. Profile photo of lmaonaise
    lmaonaise Male 13-17
    773 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:51 am
    "lmaonaise, if you knew ANYTHING at all about firearms, you would know how utterly drating stupid you just sounded."

    apparently not, please explain why its absoloutley essential you have to kill someone when disabling them would stop them just as good without, you know, destroying a family...

  81. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 11:59 am
    Statistics can be the cornerstone of any argument. I prefer it to "Think of the wittle babies" and "So you *want* to be raped?!?!?!"

    These are simply CDC numbers about when guns are used. They are not used for deterring criminals or opposing the government.

    They are used for homicide, suicide, and by accident over 97% of the time.

    You can argue that "criminals don`t obey laws", but that`s simply not fair. If that were the case, we`d have no laws against anything.

    "Why ban murder for law abiding citizens, that just means criminals will be the ones murdering people".

    "Why ban theft for..."

    "Why ban drunk driving..."

    "Why ban assault.."

    You ban things when they have a detrimental effect, because they have a detrimental effect to one or all groups in society.

    Is that the case with guns? Yes/No?

  82. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    "They are not used for deterring criminals."

    That statement is an example of were statistics fail you.

    You can`t really track deterred crimes. If a criminal knows you`re likely to be armed, he`s not going to rob you. Unfortunately there`s no way to track these prevented crimes because they do not occur.

    When`s the last time you heard a story about an police officer being robbed?

  83. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:13 pm
    "Statistics can be the cornerstone of any argument."

    Statistics are an argument in and of themselves. You`ve have the statistics for gun deaths. Why don`t you look at vehicular deaths or alcohol related deaths? Tell me, which of these three thing cause more deaths every year? Shouldn`t we ban cars? If that man hadn`t been drinking he`d still be alive today. Should we ban alcohol too?

  84. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:15 pm
    An interesting statistic in the Wikipedia article you linked earlier.

    "Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths"

  85. Profile photo of ne028
    ne028 Male 18-29
    889 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:16 pm
    baal those stats are nice and all but what does it have to do with my story? surely that 250 pound bastard couldve killed us both without a gun

    and that pie chart quote was for another post, though i still think its pretty relevant funny.

  86. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:19 pm
    When was the last time you heard of a policeman being robbed in the UK where they usually aren`t armed?

    Also, for your information, 1 in 7 police are shot with their own weapons. Linky. :P

  87. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm
    Comparing Guns to murder, theft, drunk driving, and assault is silly. Guns are tools. Murder, theft, etc. are all actions. A better analogy would be to comparing a ban on guns to a ban on Cars, alcohol, or body parts (100% of rapes are committed with a sexual organ of some kind, let`s rip em all off at birth to prevent rape).
  88. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm
    Keegan, you`re demonstrating how stats can be twisted, but simply by twisting them. They can also be used untwisted.

    My point is only 1.2% of the uses of firearms are for protection vs criminals.

    Vehicular deaths are more in number, but if you take the numbers in the same vein, you`d have
    "Times Cars kill people 10`000"
    "Times cars are used to travel from one place or another 1`000`000`000`000`000"

    The argument is "Why do you wish to own a gun"
    "Hunting" Fine.
    "To protect my family" Simply not making your family safer by having one. This is not a genuine usage of firearms in practice. The thing you are saying is false.

    If anyone lives in a fantasy world where everything works perfectly, it is the firearm owners who are pretending they are now safer because of the firearm.

    The hard truth to bear is that it`s not the case.

  89. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    I have to admit I`m a little bit annoyed at the: "Stats can say anything" culture. No, they can`t.

    You can only present half the stat, or you can provide a false stat. Each of those is equivalent to a lie.

    It is important for the reader to look exactly at the wording being used to determine what that means.

    My stats do not show that there is a high number of deaths by firearm. It doesn`t matter because I`m not making that argument.

    My stats do not show anything other than what they intended to show, factually and without bias, that guns in practice are used to kill in a set number of circumstances, and for a massive majority, it is not to kill intruders/criminals.

    If you are upset with that fact, it is not because I have twisted the truth, it is because you are upset with the reality of the matter.

  90. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    "They can also be used untwisted."

    This is my bone of contention. All stats are twisted. If only due to the parameters that can`t even be measured.

    As an example, how many of the accidental gun deaths were due to the negligence of the owner? Should responsible people punished because some people are irresponsible?

    Should we even be counting suicide in this statistic? Maybe you believe having access to a gun makes it easier to do rashly, but is jumping off a 10-story building so much more difficult or any less certain? There`s no way to prove a suicide wouldn`t have happened if there`d been no gun available, so including them is unfair.

    And how many of those homicides were committed by felons, who Cannot Legally Possess a Firearm!? A ban on firearms would not reduce that number significantly, as ,again, criminals do not obey these bans.

  91. Profile photo of BunnyNaku
    BunnyNaku Female 18-29
    5224 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    WHAHAHAHA.. when i saw the title i was like.. OH colorado has this law.. and then opened it and its in colorado springs!! rofl.. seriously
  92. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:47 pm
    "You can only present half the stat"

    Ok, this is just getting silly here. So those facts you presented are all there is to know on the subject? there is nothing more? No other way we could look at these numbers? No other way to further break them down into even smaller groups?

    Looking to my last post can you not see how the stats you provided are, in fact, only "half the stat?" You`re inflating you`re number with superfluous examples not pertinent to the argument.

  93. Profile photo of Cataclism0
    Cataclism0 Male 18-29
    212 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm
    rather than blame guns, cant we blame excessive drinking?
  94. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm
    Sigh. Fine. You win. Stats are out.

    My GUT tells me you`re wrong.
    Think of the wittle babies.
    And to keep mika happy here`s a link to some puppies that could be killed by GUNS.

    Happy now?

  95. Profile photo of nlcs
    nlcs Male 18-29
    94 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    "When`s the last time you heard a story about an police officer being robbed?"

    Isn`t that more to do with the fact that commiting a crime towards a police officer is instantly a more serious crime, and the law will totally smash your face in for it.

    As for the whole "make my day" situation, I believe that the law would make more sense be that the homeowner should only not be prosecuted if they use reasonable force with respect to the situation, I would say shooting and killing an unarmed drunk would class as beyond reasonable force, so in my opinion the homeowner should be able to be prosecuted.

  96. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm
    I`m not saying stats are completely without merit. I`m asking you how can I challenge your stats in a way that will cause You to examine them more honestly. Can you admit that at least some portion of those homicides were committed by people who were breaking the law just by being in possession of a firearm?

    And your Gut is uninformed.

  97. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 12:58 pm
    Presenting half the stat is the same as presenting half the truth.

    If there is something else relevant to the conversation, it should be included. So far when you`ve asked me to provide something additional, I`ve provided it on your behalf.

    I`m not going to go and get stats on "Number of guatamaleans in Canada who own guns" just to stop you clinging to the "half-stat" theory.

    You are running on guesswork, anecdotes, and gut. People have posted scary stories, appealed to emotion, and gone for outright non-sequitur.

    To compare that as somehow superior to the CDCs numbers on gun deaths is silly. As I`m done being your lapdog, how about you do this:
    Tell me what`s important here.

    Total deaths?
    Total crime?
    Usages of firearms?
    Police protection?
    Fighting the government?

    Then that`s what you need numbers on.

  98. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm
    To answer your question: Very little, but you`re also making a huge mistake.

    1) I`m only presenting the facts. They are correct.
    2) I`m not making an argument from those facts.

    What argument do you think I`m making?
    Do you think I want a gun ban in the united states? I don`t live there, and don`t care how often you shoot each other.

    You seem to think that my stats make an argument against what you believe. I think that`s more to do with you internally than with any argument you can make to me.

    I`m simply stating that as a population, the united states does not use it`s weapons to kill criminals, any arguments you make based on this are not factual.

    If you`re asking "How can I change your mind to make you not want gun control in the US" you`re wasting your time because I don`t hold that opinion.

  99. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:09 pm
    If however, your argument leads into
    "A man without a gun is not free"
    "The UK should have guns like the US"
    "You are safer if you own a gun"

    Then these are simple statements that can be shown to have no basis in reality. I care about statements not based on reality, irrespective of the arguments they imply/do not imply.

    For example, I just recently had an equally lengthy argument with someone claiming 95% of people get shot with their own guns. Whilst potentially true, they were implying this meant criminals disarming them then shooting them.

    Lies matter to me, not the arguments they are in.

  100. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm
    The issue we are debating, as I see it, is over the complete and utter ban of civilian firearms. What we need to see is how our lives would be improved by such a ban. You can use the numbers you had before, but certain people counted in them need to somehow be weeded out.

    For homicides you quote: 12,352. We need to weed out how many of these homicides were committed by those already breaking the law by owning a gun and remove them. A ban on guns wouldn`t effect them as they already weren`t allowed to own any.

    For suicides you quote: 17,002. We can only count the suicides that wouldn`t have happened if no gun had been present. A ban on guns would have no effect on someone who would have killed themselves regardless.

    I take no issue with you other stats.

  101. Profile photo of Wildcats2008
    Wildcats2008 Male 18-29
    237 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    Okay, for the folks that want to ban guns:

    So the only people with guns will be the criminals.

    I was raised in a home with many guns (handguns and rifles) and in the 15 or so years (yes, started shooting when I was 6) I have shot guns I have never been shot, no one in my family has been shot, and I`ve never had to use it for protection.

    I saw one post that said something about guns being a tool...exactly. You can misuse a tool or you can use it in a moral and proper manner. As I type this I`ve got a gun 6 inches from my hand and if someone were to come into my house without permission you`d bet they`d be looking down the barrel.

    Now for the story: Many states have what is called Castle Doctrine. Depending on your state there is also a clause that states that you must take steps to retreat before using a firearm. Some states don`t so if someone is attempting to break in the homeowner may confront as use necessary force.. There is a lot to the laws so look up the ones for your s

  102. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm
    "If you own a gun it is 28 times more likely to be used on you or your family than an intruder. You put your family at more risk by owning one than by not owning one."

    I think thats a biased statistic based on where you live.

    "To consider your TV and PS3 more important than a human life is pathetic and sad."

    No, you consider your reward for hard work more important than the leech who is trying to take that from you.

    "Would you agree that giving burglary the death penalty is extreme? Because if someone has a gun they will defend themselves with it, and guns are *designed* to kill."

    I`d rather give the burglar the death penalty than the family he robbed.

    "was it really necessary to even try and kill him? just blow away his kneecaps or something, everybody wins..."

    If your nervous, you dont aim. Or he did aim for the knee but missed..badly

  103. Profile photo of simim23
    simim23 Female 18-29
    1427 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm
    "rather than blame guns, cant we blame excessive drinking?"

    Completely agreed.

  104. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm
    "Do you think I want a gun ban in the united states? I don`t live there, and don`t care how often you shoot each other."

    Then what the hell do you want? A stimulating conversation? What are you arguing?

  105. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm
    This stat is true all these people banned civilan ownership of guns.Why would that be?
  106. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:19 pm
    "My GUT tells me you`re wrong."

    Wrong about what? I`m arguing against a gun ban and you say you don`t want one.

  107. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:20 pm
    "if guns were made available in the u.k. all criminals would have one, thus making the number of deaths from firearms rise from 600 a year to 11000 (u.s. figure)

    ban guns and no-one gets shot its simple logic. :)"

    If you outlaw the guns then only the outlaws have guns. If you ban guns... would someone who is willing to rob your house care if he is breaking the gun law?

    "oh and free healthcare for all while you`re at it."
    free healthcare isnt free.

    "So if you have a gun in your house then you`ll be fine? Well what if the guy coming in your home has a gun too?"

    What if the guy coming in had a gun, and you didnt?

  108. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:22 pm
    "free healthcare isn`t free."

    Completely true, but did you know you`re already paying for it?

  109. Profile photo of dystopia04
    dystopia04 Female 18-29
    1082 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:32 pm
    thats crazy. i agree that the owner shouldnt be prosecuted, but damn...
  110. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:35 pm
    @Baalthazaq from your wikki link

    -UK banned private ownership of most handguns in 1997, previously held by an estimated 57,000 people—0.1% of the population. Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled. In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including soft air guns). Since 1998, the number of fatal shootings has varied between 49 and 97, and was 50 in 2005. Since 2003/4 gun crime rates have actually fallen to about their 2000/01 level In Scotland the picture has been more varied with no pattern of rise or fall appearing. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994 .

  111. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:39 pm
    Why complete and utter ban?

    I disagree that those numbers need to be weeded out, however:

    Suicide is certainly higher amongst gun owners. There is also the issue of success rates. Cutters and pill takers are far more likely to survive.

    You`ll find a weed out will not take out more than 20% of the figure.

    As for gun crime, taking it out completely (as I can`t find reliable info), gives you a total of:

    91.9% suicides.
    0 homicies. (For now, but obviously much higher)
    5.4% accidental shootings.
    2.7% Legal interventions.


    This is not because firearms increase suicide rates massively, but significantly, it is also a product of the number of criminals shot with firearms is insignificant.

  112. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:40 pm
    -In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city`s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
    -New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
    -In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
    -Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
  113. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:48 pm
    Are you kidding?

    I simply pointed out to the 10 odd people arguing that some statements were not factual. This is a debate about guns.

    It doesn`t have to be about how the government reacts to guns. It can quite happily be an argument about "Should you go out and get a gun?". "Does a gun make you safer". Etc. I`m not interested in what the fashionable topic of the day is in a country roughly 18`000km away.

    (McGovern, the wiki article has a response to your picture and your comment also specifically states that gun crime was highest in 1994 and lowest in 2004... )

  114. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:55 pm
    "I`m not interested in what the fashionable topic of the day is in a country roughly 18`000km away."

    You seem to be.

  115. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 1:59 pm
    No, you are.

    I`m merely interested in "Guns" not "US gun control laws" except as it pertains to "Guns".

    Similarly I could be interested in "Cars", if you want to force an argument on "Drunk Driving" that`s your issue.


    1976 Washington laws did not realistically increase the crime rate by the way.

  116. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm
    "Why complete and utter ban?"

    That`s what I`m arguing against, I`m for gun regulation.

    "Suicide is certainly higher amongst gun owners. "

    Are you saying people buys guns and then become suicidal, or do suicidal people like to buy guns?

  117. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:12 pm
    Neither. I`m suggesting that easy access to firearms gives rise to easy suicides. Delaying a suicide for even a few seconds shows dramatic results in fewer suicides.

    Giving people harsher methods, or methods with a higher failure chance, often prevents attempts.

    Guns offer a higher success rate.

    Denying people their preferred method often reduces suicide rates.

    These combine to make gun ownership a risk factor in suicide rates. The link I gave demonstrated a 10% increase in regular suicides in low gun areas, and a 60% reduction in firearm suicides.

    It also demonstrated a suicide rate over 14k in high gun areas and 8k in low gun areas.

  118. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:15 pm
    The thing I`m trying to say is that where guns are generally unavailable then the ability of criminals to obtain guns is severly restricted.

    By the way, we have a similar law here in the UK. It gives basically the same right to force someone from your home but has a "reasonable force" clause. It usually protects people from prosecution when forcing someone from their home but if they use unnecessary force, such as killing them, then they will be sent to jail.

    You have confronted a burgler in your home. You both have guns raised pointing at each other (criminal obtained gun illegally, something much harder to do where guns are illegal), who will fire first? Well you would probably hesitate, not being completely sure of the criminal`s intentions and not wanting to kill someone unncessarily. However if the burgler came into your house with the intention of killing you and your family he will fire straight away. (continued next post)

  119. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:17 pm
    So with a 60% reduction in suicides in low gun ares, shouldn`t your reduce your suicide gun death numbers by 40% for the purposes of the debate?
  120. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm
    Even if he didn`t intend to kill you, the threat of the loaded gun would probably cause him to fire in his own self defense. (This is all assuming you haven`t already shot him...)
  121. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:23 pm
    Atlacatl – “Sarah, you can`t separate a free man from his arms, otherwise he is not free.”

    I think thats a load of nonsense. Thats not what free means. Thats what people say so they can keep their nice gun collection and show their patriotism. The only people who think that free means the same as owning a gun, are those who have been brought up with your constitution and bill of rights. Its drilled in to you. Im not anti-your constitution, im not anti-guns. But that kind of logic is why guns are such a problem in the US while they;re not over in European countries where they are illegal. IMO.

    Baalthazaq - “That`s not true in the UK. It`s a mixup of a law which says you are not allowed to set a trap for an intruder.”

    Are you sure? I was sure I had read of a couple of cases. If so I must have read them in the Daily Mail and got suckered in by the The-World-Is-Doomed Brigade!

  122. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:28 pm
    I just realized something about your statistics. I`m sorry it took me this long to realize this.
    Maybe it`s because I just now figured out what you were trying to say. Honestly I`m a bit confused as to why you bothered to show us these statistics at all as they barely lend any credence to your argument whatsoever.
  123. Profile photo of Robert_D
    Robert_D Male 18-29
    589 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:30 pm
    I bet that man wouldn`t feel so good if he accidentally shot his drunken son coming home after partying late one night.

    This law, allowing you to shoot without consequences in your own home in these circumstances, is just inviting trouble...

  124. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:40 pm
    It`s alright, you seem like a reasonable guy, I think we`ve just been arguing alongside each other rather than at each other for a while.

    You seem to think I`m trying to use the stats to prove "Gun controls X should be in place". I`m not, my point was merely: Having a gun in your home puts you and your family at more risk than not.

    It is more likely your 15 year old will be found dead after breaking up with someone in high school, than some intruder being fended off by you.

    The way to prevent this is simply to not buy a gun. I also think "gun culture" and movies glamorizing guns should be lowered. (I don`t mind guns in movies, but when they`re being made to look cool it bothers me).

  125. Profile photo of bingo5765
    bingo5765 Male 18-29
    207 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm
    I support this law. Is alcohol supposed to be some god damn protection from the law? I`m supposed to feel sorry for a drunk that broke a glass window to try to enter a house? I`m sorry but more than likely he was trying to steal poo, and it was breaking and entering. Not to mention, I have been fall-down lights out drunk before, and NEVER been unable to tell my house from another`s.
  126. Profile photo of tenty
    tenty Male 18-29
    425 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:51 pm
    Just ban guns?? works everywhere else.
  127. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:54 pm
    Link for SarahJ. I`ve not been able to find any cases yet where the case was not thrown out of court.

    Specifically, when I was in pre-law in London, the case of someone breaking into a house and slipping on a skateboard was brought up as "one of those cases you hear about, but never get told they get dismissed fairly early on in the proceedings".

    If the skateboard was part of a trap, that would have been another matter.

    Keep in mind, it`s very hard for me to prove something *didn`t* happen. I can`t say with certainty that it hasn`t but it`s certainly not set up so that the law favours the criminal.

  128. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:56 pm
    lol Tenty. You condensed a whole side of the argument into 6 words.
  129. Profile photo of DuckBoy87
    DuckBoy87 Male 18-29
    3245 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 2:59 pm
    Just remember, gun control controls the legal use of guns, not the illegal use of guns.
    So criminals are going to get guns no matter what.

    Remember that trick-or-treater that got shot? He was shot with an ILLEGAL gun, the AK47. He was also an ex-convict. sarcasm: How did he ever obtain that gun? /sarcasm

    Gun control helps the illegal use of guns, not the legal use.

  130. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:00 pm
    "If you outlaw the guns then only the outlaws have guns. If you ban guns... would someone who is willing to rob your house care if he is breaking the gun law?"

    To jump in to your convo... No. Thats why banning guns in the US would really be pointless as the damage is done. However, making them legal in the UK would almost certainly drastically increase deaths from guns. That is not because people don`t have them now because they are illegal. They have knives on the street and thats illegal.

    But because if something is legal, and people can acquire it legally, then theres a legitmate trade and they are easy to buy. If this is the case, the chance of a gun getting in the wrong hand, or being used in an instance when it wouldnt have been used before, goes through the roof.


  131. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:02 pm
    Baalthazaq - Ah ok, so it was the Daily Mail clouding my mind! Ive switched to the independent now, its all good ;)
  132. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:06 pm
    The daily mail used to be better back in my day, but I agree the independent is better. ;)
  133. Profile photo of danthew
    danthew Male 18-29
    2122 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:09 pm
    Could someone post the general system that people go through to get a gun in the US? I know that there are some circumstances where guns can actually be legal in the UK.
  134. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:09 pm
    Its still quite an entertaining read, if you can keep your rage suppressed long enough to make it past the front page. I tend to explode by the time I get to the opinion pieces.
  135. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:12 pm
    "Specifically, when I was in pre-law in London, the case of someone breaking into a house and slipping on a skateboard was brought up as "one of those cases you hear about, but never get told they get dismissed fairly early on in the proceedings"."

    well... in the US I know someone that was sued for a burglar jumping a fence and their dog biting them. They didnt have a sign so they were liable... Negligence cases are a bitch

  136. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7935 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:12 pm
    "Could someone post the general system that people go through to get a gun in the US? I know that there are some circumstances where guns can actually be legal in the UK."

    umm from what I know you go to buy a gun. They put your name in some registration thing, and if you pass, then in a week you go back and pick up the gun

  137. Profile photo of dragosal
    dragosal Male 18-29
    1630 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 3:59 pm
    i doubt they call it the same but its the same in NY cept its your property as a whole not just your home. just any trespassers haha kinda funny
  138. Profile photo of joncuevas123
    joncuevas123 Male 13-17
    59 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 4:59 pm
    lol

    "i only shot him in the chest"

    that made my day...

  139. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:00 pm
    In 1911 Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

    In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents were arrested and executed.

    In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were killed by the state.

    In 1935 China established gun control. Between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and murdered by the Communists.

    In 1956 Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people (about 1/3 of the entire population!) were executed by the Reds.

  140. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    In 1964 Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981 over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed, unable to defend themselves.

    In 1970 the Ugandan dictator decreed gun control. During the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were murdered.

    I am curious if anyone can name a Dictatorship anywhere in the world that allows it`s citizens to own Firearms.

    I`ll share a quote from a well Known European Gun Control Advocate with you.

    "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933.

  141. Profile photo of opiebreath
    opiebreath Female 18-29
    15774 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:13 pm
    Um... why is it called the "make my day" law?
  142. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 8:53 pm
    Silver:
    Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran. Off the top of my head.

    From wiki: Pro-gun control historians (as well as pro-Nazi gun rights advocates) have pointed out that already the democratic Weimar Republic had restrictive gun laws, which were actually liberalized by the Nazis. According to the Weimar Republic 1928 Law on Firearms & Ammunition, firearms acquisition or carrying permits were “only to be granted to persons of undoubted reliability, and — in the case of a firearms carry permit — only if a demonstration of need is set forth.” The Nazis replaced this law with the Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, which was very similar in structure and wording, but relaxed gun control requirements for the general populace.

    There are also countries (UK/Austria/Japan) with strong gun control policies, and no tyranny.

  143. Profile photo of AndrewST
    AndrewST Male 18-29
    181 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:29 pm
    SarahJ86:
    "But because if something is legal, and people can acquire it legally, then theres a legitmate trade and they are easy to buy. If this is the case, the chance of a gun getting in the wrong hand, or being used in an instance when it wouldnt have been used before, goes through the roof."

    ------------------------------------------------
    Hmm...your statement couldn`t be more wrong. If someone can not legally purchase a firearm then they wouldn`t be able to purchase it through a legal channel. They would have to purchase it through an illegal channel, which they will do regardless. Someone who cry`s "ease of access" doesn`t really have a clue. History has proven time and time again, the more "Gun Control" a system has the higher the crime rate is. A perfect example in the U.S. is Washington DC. The most strict gun laws in the nation are in force, yet it has the highest crime rate.

    But that is just one example of MANY examples through history

  144. Profile photo of Pilanus
    Pilanus Male 18-29
    675 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 9:46 pm
    I love that My state`s make my day law.

    You are allowed to defend your home any way possible. if that requires killing them, it is allowed. however, if you disable them and then kill them, you can be charged.

    My Mother got to taser a kid that was trying to play a prank on me. I was asleep at the time, but the kid had broken in. No charges were filed.

  145. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm
    Andrew:
    The UK has an estimated 120`000 to 500`000 guns, which includes deactivated, reactivated, replica, legal and illegal firearms.

    The US has 200 million in legal alone.

    UK: <0.002 to <0.01 per person.
    US: >0.5 per person.

    Long story short, the US has more. by 5000% to 25000%. If you count illegal firearms estimates for the states and no legal, you get about a quarter of that.

    SarahJ seems to have it right. Almost all illegal guns in the US start out by being legal guns. Of guns recovered from crime scenes in New York:

    26% from Virginia,
    19% in Florida,
    11% in Texas,
    9% in Georgia.
    We have now reached 55% of the guns, and we haven`t seen one manufactured at home, or smuggled in from abroad

  146. Profile photo of Victory7
    Victory7 Male 18-29
    362 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:49 pm
    We can debate about guns used as protectuon all we want, but it`s a stupid discussion. Firearms are the modern weapons of this world, like the club, sword, and spear of ancient days. You use a gun to kill people who try to kill you. Simple, there should be no question on why you should have one for defense, it`s freaking common sense. The ONLY reason we in the US have awesome gun rights is to prevent tyranny. That`s it. And in order for a citizenship to exert authority over a government, they need modern weapons equivalent to the government`s arsenal. You can say, "This country is perfect, tyranny couldn`t possibly happen here you fool." Oh yeah? Tell that to every other civilization ever created.
  147. Profile photo of digganob
    digganob Male 30-39
    135 posts
    February 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm
    Gun Control argume-err discussion, again?

    I guess I`ll throw in my obligatory two cents:

    The Right To Bear Arms in the US constitution is there to ensure that the people are capable of overthrowing the government, if it should become necessary. To maintain that the government is there to serve us, and not the other way around.

    Remember how we won our independence in the first place: Militia.

  148. Profile photo of SarahJ86
    SarahJ86 Female 18-29
    495 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 1:10 am
    "If someone can not legally purchase a firearm then they wouldn`t be able to purchase it through a legal channel."

    No they wouldn`t. But then the chance of them getting their hands on any gun if they are available through legal mechanisms increases.

    My point is that if a gun is available legally and is manufactured in bulk (no matter how regulated) the chance of a gun going astray, or being used for murder outside of defence of the home as allowed by this law here, or the chance of guns being sold though legal means and then funding themselves on the blackmarket goes through the roof. The US proves that.

    Just look at gun related deaths in the US. Look at all those illegal murders which have come from guns. Look at home many of them were bought legally initially as Baalth has pointed out. Do you think this would happen if they took 99.9% of those guns out of homes or the streets?

  149. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 3:19 am
    so wait...if somebody is in my house, i can `legally` kill them? thats what they made it sound like, im sure its more complex than that...right?
  150. Profile photo of TKD_Master
    TKD_Master Male 18-29
    4794 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 3:20 am
    "You are allowed to defend your home any way possible. if that requires killing them, it is allowed. however, if you disable them and then kill them, you can be charged."

    oh i see, nevermind then...and i bet your buddy never tried to prank you again lmao.

  151. Profile photo of Boredx12
    Boredx12 Female 13-17
    1654 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 7:41 am
    My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
    Simple.
  152. Profile photo of MORNAF1
    MORNAF1 Male 13-17
    557 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 10:11 am
    "My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
    Simple."

    not so simple, tell me, which would you rather have happen? A criminal come at you with an improvised weapon, maybe a baseball bat, or a fire poker, and have to beat that criminal with whatever you can grab?
    or would you rather shoot him before he can attack you or your family with his weapon?

  153. Profile photo of Victory7
    Victory7 Male 18-29
    362 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 10:22 am
    @ SarahJ26:

    What you`re saying is already common knowledge. If something is legal and in quantities, bad people will ALWAYS get them. It`s a fact of life. No matter what you do, evil will always find a way to work around a set of laws it does not respect or follow. Weapons kill people, it`s what they`re made for. You cannot say a gun is evil no more than a carrot is a racist, it doesn`t make sense. They are tools, and if a government refuses to trust it`s own citizens with even basic tools, then by God it`s time to revolt.

  154. Profile photo of lloyd525
    lloyd525 Male 13-17
    98 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
    just because you use a gun in self defense doesnt mean you have to kill that person. you could just pop a cap in the knee or something. i wouldnt get up after that. and i would imagine it wouldnt be the pain it would be the thought that they would shoot again.

    But only the coppers have guns for protection in the UK. im safe as houses :)

  155. Profile photo of lloyd525
    lloyd525 Male 13-17
    98 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 12:04 pm
    @SilverThread

    Its spelt Adolf not Adolph.

  156. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 3:07 pm
    "My view is, if no guns were made, no one would have one, and therefore no one would get killed with one. Another bonus of this is, if we expanded it to include all weapons, to more atomic bomb threats, no more war.
    Simple."

    Simple. And, consequently, simplistic.

    Right now there are people in poor countries building homemade firearms with which to fight their governments. It`s not like you can prevent firearms from existing.

    And besides, such a happy-we-all-love-the-world approach will make you feel good, until next Thursday when the somewhat-less-happy country invades and subjugates you.

    Simplicity.

  157. Profile photo of kairobert
    kairobert Male 18-29
    1623 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 3:33 pm
    All these people using the argument "bad guys can kill my family".

    Well what if the bad guys didn`t have such a drating easy access to guns? Just look at European countries, only a few of their bad guys have guns because they`re so hard to get.


    And don`t forget that you`re much more likely to kill a family member with a firearm than a criminal.

  158. Profile photo of Victory7
    Victory7 Male 18-29
    362 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 5:28 pm
    After reading everyone`s posts, I have concluded that people have no desire for their own safety or freedom, are irrevocably stupid, and that the nukes should be launched so we can start over. I`ve given up on Europe and the rest of the world. But mostly Europe.
  159. Profile photo of kristy22587
    kristy22587 Female 18-29
    54 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 8:03 pm
    OMG i cant believe no charges can be laid!! The US is one crazy place!! They allow people to have guns yet do not enforce any kind of punishment for this!! I mean come on!!! Its sheer STUPIDITY this guy should be locked up for being stupid. Why didnt they just leave through the front door?? instead of KILLING him?? Over here people get thrown into jail if they attempt to hurt anyone breaking and entering. drating crazy
  160. Profile photo of Coodude26
    Coodude26 Male 13-17
    340 posts
    February 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm
    "OMG i cant believe no charges can be laid!! The US is one crazy place!! They allow people to have guns yet do not enforce any kind of punishment for this!! I mean come on!!! Its sheer STUPIDITY this guy should be locked up for being stupid. Why didnt they just leave through the front door?? instead of KILLING him?? Over here people get thrown into jail if they attempt to hurt anyone breaking and entering. drating crazy"

    "Oh gee, this guy is breaking into my home and might try to kill us. Maybe I should shoot him - no, best to leave and hope he doesn`t notice us or try to kill us"

    Don`t pull that "he might not be armed" BS. Better safe than dead.

  161. Profile photo of fatbone
    fatbone Male 18-29
    39 posts
    February 22, 2009 at 4:20 am
    I believe that you should be able to defend yourself, but only if you are in in immediate danger. Meaning you must know that the burglar intends to kill you. I mean, why do you break in? To steal not to kill.
  162. Profile photo of steve41high
    steve41high Male 18-29
    1153 posts
    February 22, 2009 at 6:07 am
    haha typical america.
    shoot someone - get away with it.
    how is it legal to open fire on someone? how?!
    stupid out of date laws, thats why
  163. Profile photo of DoodGuy
    DoodGuy Male 13-17
    52 posts
    February 22, 2009 at 1:13 pm
    Haha. Colorado FTW! I live in Pueblo
  164. Profile photo of Victory7
    Victory7 Male 18-29
    362 posts
    February 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm
    "I believe that you should be able to defend yourself, but only if you are in in immediate danger. Meaning you must know that the burglar intends to kill you. I mean, why do you break in? To steal not to kill."

    In theory, this sounds alright. But in reality, how do you honestly accomplish this? "Excuse me home invader, is your intent to kill because you are a mass murderer or high on a drug? Or to steal?" You cannot react in a stressful life or death scenario in this manner, it goes against every part of the human psyche. If someone is forcing entry into my home, they have forfeited all rights at the door and do not deserve mercy. Because that is what your suggestion is saying, that criminals deserve mercy and should be treated fairly in a life or death situation. Reality is far different from psuedo-intellectual schools of thought.

  165. Profile photo of BoomStick
    BoomStick Male 30-39
    122 posts
    February 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm
    "cant we blame excessive drinking?"

    That`s what she said.

  166. Profile photo of nullnill
    nullnill Male 18-29
    12 posts
    February 23, 2009 at 4:37 am
    That law is wrong.
    It should be such that if you are not under attack you should not be allowed under any circumstances to fire a lethal shot.
    What this means is that you can prevent the burgler, like in this news piece, by shooting at his legs or something, no his chest.
  167. Profile photo of JimboH
    JimboH Male 30-39
    603 posts
    February 23, 2009 at 10:36 am
    I can appreciate the idea that we should only use lethal force when our lives are in danger, but to place the onus of determining if that`s legally the case on the victim is unjust.
  168. Profile photo of DjEsrever
    DjEsrever Male 18-29
    61 posts
    December 14, 2009 at 12:17 pm
    lol awesome

Leave a Reply