|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:04pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
So in other words, you were completely defenseless, entirely at their mercy, they know your doors are unlocked and can come back whenever they want, you won't even call the police, have nothing to defend yourself with, and are basically banking on your misguided belief that everybody is a good person and you have nothing to worry about.
Also lol @ at burglary being at the bottom end of the 'crime food chain'. Semantics aside, if two guys break into my house, I'm going to whole-heartedly assume that they don't have the best intentions. Like am I missing something here? My house isn't for the public to enter, steal my stuff, inherently threaten my safety, etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:11pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
And by way, this bothers me. If I were your neighbor, it would really bother me.
If you get robbed or maimed or family hurt because of your own lack of responsibility, preparedness, and foresight, fine. But your attitude (and many people who feel similarly) make it easier for criminals to operate. Nothing bad will ever happen to them from going into your place. They will never be in immiment danger, and will never be arrested and charged for their felonies. So what do they do? They go next door next, or wherever else...
goddamn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:12pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3566
WPP: 98
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
You got the lucky end of a persons "fight or flight" mechanism. They chose flight. If they had chosen fight, I don't think you realize that you very well might be dead. It amuses me that after they left you decided it was a good time to lock your door, but you still don't do it every day.
That's brilliance right there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:24pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3566
WPP: 98
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| Pelion wrote: | | Renton wrote: |
Obviously the pivot point here is whether the guns should exist in the first place. Either A) you take away guns, and America becomes safe like every other country that has moved on to the 21st century, or you B) allow guns and just accept that Mr. Gonzalez has the right to be an evil piece of shit from time to time.
You can't have both, and to be honest, I'm not sure under our current system if Gonzalez should have even stood trial. |
Or C) You have guns which are useable as a last resort for self defense and if someone uses one to take justice into their own hands or for revenge or in any situation where it is considered to be unjustified you treat it as a crime. |
You're ignoring the fact that this is pretty much exactly what the law says.
Here's the florida law, since its the one I'm most familiar with after taking god knows how many classes on it:
A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
It goes on to define exactly what those forcible felonies are, but I don't think that's important here. Note however that the bolded area does NOT say "against themselves, their family, or any person to which they have a legal duty". It says if they see the imminent commission of a forcible felony ANYWHERE at ANYTIME, they can use deadly force IF he or she reasonably (and that reasonableness test is decided by the JURY) believes it to be necessary.
People most certainly HAVE been put in prison by a jury for violating the reasonableness test.
So in short, your premise is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
Euph-- I think Pelion was pointing out that's pretty much what the law is.
I think a lot of states are starting to get these things right with more liberalized CCW and castle doctrine laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:36pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3566
WPP: 98
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.
In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 12:56pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 177
WPP: 130
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Pelion wrote: | what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.
Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational. |
i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:27pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | CCW laws are not the answer. If our goal is to deter crime, rather than just kill people who commit crime, then open carry (as in, you can see that fucking glock on my hip and I ain't hiding it) should be an option.
In Florida open carry is specifically illegal and we're one of the most pro-gun states around. I think that's absurd. The idea behind CCW was that the criminals would never know who was carrying and who wasn't -- but criminals DO know that the odds of anyone in a given area carrying are still very very low. I can't think of any good reason not to allow both. |
I agree. I think concealed carry is a better option though, but that's just my personal opinion.
Also, re: Florida-- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html
| Quote: | In 1987, when Florida enacted such legislation, critics warned that the "Sunshine State" would become the "Gunshine State." Contrary to their predictions, homicide rates dropped faster than the national average. Further, through 1997, only one permit holder out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. (Source: Kleck, Gary Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 370. Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.) If the rest of the country behaved as Florida's permit holders did, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate in the world.
David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience:
"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5) |
there's a lot of good stuff in there...
| Quote: | | John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 1:45pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3566
WPP: 98
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:31pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Posts: 102
WPP: 156
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
ok ..you just admited that you STILL dont lock your doors after you found someone in your house....
where do you live?
never neverland?
you are foolish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:49pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1383
WPP: 117
Location: value towning myself
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
i think you watch too many michael moore movies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 2:55pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| oskar wrote: | I'm a little bit shocked by the comments on here. Were talking about burglary... it's on the bottom end of the crime food chain. I got broken in once... broken in is a little harsh because I never lock my door. At 3 in the morning I heard some noise in the kitchen, got up to see whats going on and saw two guys looking very startled. I said "What do you think you're doing?" and they ran away. I looked the door, made sure nothing was missing and went back to sleep. I would't for a moment have thought that anyones life was seriously in danger there. I still don't lock my doors and I'm not armed... I don't even have a sharp knife.
I think you guys are watching too many movies. |
Honestly, like I keep reading this and I'm completely bewildered. I mean, you can't even lock your door and call the police if you hear it get busted down? I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but it's a whole lot better than doing nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:13pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 2887
WPP: 112
Location: at your tables, calling your bets
|
|
I think oskar should leave a glass of milk and some chocolate chip cookies on the table every night.
Edit: I don't want this post to come across as snarky since I complained about snarky posts earlier in the thread, but the way you handled the situation (and continue to handle it) puts your life in danger for no good reason. |
Last edited by mcatdog on Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:35pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 3:14pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3566
WPP: 98
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | | euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:09pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 2837
WPP: 106
Location: #flopturnriver
|
|
| JKDS wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | Pelion wrote: | what is your point spoon?
Is it that it should be legal to shoot kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids out of revenge?
It should be legal to shoot naughty kids anyway?
It shouldnt be technically legal to shoot naughty kids but we shouldnt really care when someone does it anyway?
Or something else? |
My point is that there is some good to be found in this kid getting killed, despite the immediate reaction our moral compasses have against a child getting blown in half with a shotgun.
Anyone who believes there is no good in this kid getting shot is clearly irrational. |
i agree, but there is more badness to be found in this kid getting killed which is why the moral compass goes against having a child getting blown in half in the first place. |
Eh, maybe. It's fairly subjective and we could go on with this for days and days with no end in sight. It would be much easier to evaluate if we were given more information what what exactly went on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 4:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 1947
WPP: 96
Location: MOAR BETTAR
|
|
| Lukie wrote: | How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
|
gentrification is seen as the main reason (apparently since '93), and not gun control |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 8:28pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3248
WPP: 165
Location: Ohio
|
|
| euphoricism wrote: | | Lukie wrote: | | euphoricism wrote: | Well yeah concealed IS better, but only if its common.
Think of it like game theory. If only open carry is allowed, then a criminal can clearly see that the area he is in has no guns in it and he can do his crime. Therefore if we conceal the weapons he'll never know if there's a weapon around so he SHOULD be less inclined to commit a crime. However that ONLY works if there are a significant enough amount of weapons concealed in the populace to create a significant chance that someone has a weapon in order for there to be a deterrent effect. Since the amount of CCW permits is an incredibly small % of the populace, a criminal can certainly feel more comfortable doing his crime.
The answer is then allow open carry AND get more people with guns in their hands. However guns are quite expensive, and CCW permits themselves are another $150 or so. I guess that ensures that only the people who really want them (and would therefore hopefully act more responsible with them) will get them however it also keeps the # of guns low and therefore the deterrent effect low. |
How would you explain the overriding trend then? I.e. areas that have loose ccw and castle doctrine laws almost invariably see decreases in crime, whereas a place like Washington D.C. (where handguns were outright banned until recently) have very high rates of violent crime and was once known as the 'Murder capitol of the U.S'-- all while handguns were banned.
I see two flaws with your argument. First, even somebody who has a very-small chance to be armed can be a very big deterrant. You can't weight them equally... getting shot and maimed or killed is a much bigger loss than stealing somebody's wallet with $100 in it. It's similar to pascal's wager in this regard.
Second, you are making the flawed assumption that people are necessarily going to be making game theory perfect decisions. I'd argue that people who are going to be commiting violent crimes are generally pathetic people and are terrible at life and making life decisions, making my first point null and void anyway. |
oh yes don't get me wrong, we KNOW that CCW permits have reduced crime rates. However it stands to reason that also allowing open carry would reduce it even further, and I have not found a good argument against that policy yet. The closest I've heard is "Itll be just like the wild west with gunfights in the streets!" which is fallacious for a number of reasons -- not the least being that the wild west had significantly lower rates of violent crimes precisely BECAUSE everyone had a gun on their hip. |
I support the right to open carry. On an individual basis, I think CCW is a better choice for a variety of reasons. Like I said though, by no means do I see open carry as bad, it doesn't make me nervous, and I support the right to able to do it.
About the "it'll juts be like the wild west".. I think people get that crap from hollywood and base their opinions on that, be it consciously or subconsciously. It's quite sad, really.
Why would a criminal go through the process of getting a CCW permit (classes, fingerprinting, licensing, etc.)? Why would a criminal carry openly on their hip? It makes no sense. And by every account I've ever read, people who carry are like, the most law-abiding group of any, and it's not even close. Yet people still spew this vigilanteism and wild wild west crap like they believe it.. drives me crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 30 Sep 2008, 9:47pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 3814
WPP: 142
Location: Ballarat, Australia
|
|
I think some people grossly overestimate the amount of thought and consideration a lot of people would give when faced with the situation of multiple intruders inside their home.
If I found multiple people breaking into my home, especially if my wife and son were home, I would not be giving consideration to their age and potential motivations. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Exclusive $250 freeroll for FTR at LuckyAcePoker on Dec 18!
